FairVote Bloghttp://www.fairvote.org/research-and-analysis/blog/rss
Does the Candidate Determine the Battleground States in Presidential Elections?http://www.fairvote.org/research-and-analysis/blog/does-the-candidate-determine-the-battleground-states-in-presidential-elections/
<p><em>Interested in this topic? <a href="http://org.salsalabs.com/o/2495/p/salsa/web/common/public/signup?signup_page_KEY=5995" target="_blank">Sign up</a> to receive our newsletter and other updates on elections and electoral reform.</em></p>
<hr><p> </p>
<p>In a <em>Real Clear Politics</em> <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/02/17/democrats_blue_wall_not_impregnable_to_republicans_--_if_theyre_smart_125631.html">article</a> last week, Michael Barone outlined a Republican strategy for breaking Democrats’ “blue wall” in the 2016 presidential election.<a title="" href="file:///C:/Users/FairVote/Downloads/BlogReBaroneBlueWallArticle_Draft_2015_02_18_CED_AD.docx#_edn1">[i]</a> He argued that they should, first, target states where Romney lost by a relatively small margin, and second, target states based on the potential to mobilize voters through a candidate’s characteristics.</p>
<p>We generally agree that the first step is important. But how much does the second step, using candidate-specific qualities as a basis for targeting states, really matter?</p>
<p><img class="center" title="By The Official White House Photostream (Pete Souza) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons" src="http://www.fairvote.org/assets/Uploads/_resampled/ResizedImage550427-Barack-Obama-and-Hillary-Clinton-speakings-together.jpg" alt="Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton speakings together" width="550" height="427"></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Let’s tease out Barone’s example of Democrats’ strategy in 2008. Barone says in 2008, Democrats first targeted states based on their close margins in 2004, so Iowa, New Mexico, Ohio, Nevada, and Florida. Then, Barone suggests that the next group of targeted states depended on the candidate’s characteristics. Obama may have targeted Colorado, Virginia, North Carolina, and Missouri because of their large minority populations and large blocs of “upscale whites.” Conversely, he argues, Hillary Clinton would have targeted Missouri, Arkansas, Arizona, Tennessee, and West Virginia because of Bill Clinton’s success there in previous elections.</p>
<p>How much did it actually matter that Obama won the 2008 Democratic primary, and not Clinton, in terms of targeted states? We suspect not much. Underlying partisanship, or a state’s preference for Democrats or Republicans relative to the national average, ultimately has a stronger influence than candidate characteristics. <a title="" href="file:///C:/Users/FairVote/Downloads/BlogReBaroneBlueWallArticle_Draft_2015_02_18_CED_AD.docx#_edn2">[ii]</a></p>
<p>In 2008, Obama may just as well have targeted certain states, and not the ones that Barone suggests Clinton would have targeted, because of their underlying partisanship. The average underlying partisanship of Obama’s target states (CO, VA, NC, and MO) was more Democratic than the average underlying partisanship of Clinton’s hypothetical target states (MO, AR, AZ, TN, and WV).</p>
<table style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><caption>Barack Obama’s 2008 Target States, According to Barone</caption>
<tbody><tr><td width="49" valign="top">
<p align="center"><strong>State</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="134" valign="top">
<p align="center"><strong>Democratic Partisanship '04</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="134" valign="top">
<p align="center"><strong>Democratic Ad Spending '08</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="163" valign="top">
<p align="center"><strong>Democratic Campaign Events '08</strong></p>
</td>
</tr><tr><td width="49" valign="top">
<p align="center">CO</p>
</td>
<td width="134" valign="top">
<p align="center">48.9%</p>
</td>
<td width="134" valign="top">
<p align="center">$5,443,719</p>
</td>
<td width="163" valign="top">
<p align="center">11</p>
</td>
</tr><tr><td width="49" valign="top">
<p align="center">MO</p>
</td>
<td width="134" valign="top">
<p align="center">47.6%</p>
</td>
<td width="134" valign="top">
<p align="center">$5,754,899</p>
</td>
<td width="163" valign="top">
<p align="center">12</p>
</td>
</tr><tr><td width="49" valign="top">
<p align="center">VA</p>
</td>
<td width="134" valign="top">
<p align="center">47.1%</p>
</td>
<td width="134" valign="top">
<p align="center">$14,501,469</p>
</td>
<td width="163" valign="top">
<p align="center">16</p>
</td>
</tr><tr><td width="49" valign="top">
<p align="center">NC</p>
</td>
<td width="134" valign="top">
<p align="center">45.0%</p>
</td>
<td width="134" valign="top">
<p align="center">$6,657,487</p>
</td>
<td width="163" valign="top">
<p align="center">10</p>
</td>
</tr></tbody></table><p> </p>
<table style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><caption>Hillary Clinton’s Hypothetical 2008 Target States, According to Barone</caption>
<tbody><tr><td width="49" valign="top">
<p align="center"><strong>State</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="134" valign="top">
<p align="center"><strong>Democratic Partisanship '04</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="134" valign="top">
<p align="center"><strong>Democratic Ad Spending '08</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="163" valign="top">
<p align="center"><strong>Democratic Campaign Events '08</strong></p>
</td>
</tr><tr><td width="49" valign="top">
<p align="center">MO</p>
</td>
<td width="134" valign="top">
<p align="center">47.6%</p>
</td>
<td width="134" valign="top">
<p align="center">$5,754,899</p>
</td>
<td width="163" valign="top">
<p align="center">12</p>
</td>
</tr><tr><td width="49" valign="top">
<p align="center">AR</p>
</td>
<td width="134" valign="top">
<p align="center">46.4%</p>
</td>
<td width="134" valign="top">
<p align="center">$1,750</p>
</td>
<td width="163" valign="top">
<p align="center">0</p>
</td>
</tr><tr><td width="49" valign="top">
<p align="center">AZ</p>
</td>
<td width="134" valign="top">
<p align="center">46.0%</p>
</td>
<td width="134" valign="top">
<p align="center">$74,583</p>
</td>
<td width="163" valign="top">
<p align="center">0</p>
</td>
</tr><tr><td width="49" valign="top">
<p align="center">WV</p>
</td>
<td width="134" valign="top">
<p align="center">44.8%</p>
</td>
<td width="134" valign="top">
<p align="center">$508,586</p>
</td>
<td width="163" valign="top">
<p align="center">1</p>
</td>
</tr><tr><td width="49" valign="top">
<p align="center">TN</p>
</td>
<td width="134" valign="top">
<p align="center">44.1%</p>
</td>
<td width="134" valign="top">
<p align="center">$9,499</p>
</td>
<td width="163" valign="top">
<p align="center">0</p>
</td>
</tr></tbody></table><p> </p>
<p>Furthermore, candidates must recognize that it is very difficult to change a state’s underlying partisanship by more than a few percentage points. In the 2004, 2008, and 2012 elections, an average of only three states experienced a partisanship change of more than 5% (and the large majority of those states did not become swing states as a result). At one point, Barone may have been realistic in imagining larger swings in underlying partisanship, but that is no longer the case.</p>
<p>Several of the states Barone mentions were far out-of-reach for any Democratic candidate in 2008. For example, in 2004, West Virginia and Tennessee had partisanships of 44.8% and 44.1% Democratic, respectively. Why assume that Clinton would have taken her chances vying for unlikely 5-6% increases in their partisanships if she had been the Democratic nominee in 2008, when states like Colorado and Virginia required far fewer Democratic votes to win statewide?</p>
<p>Next, let’s look at Barone’s predictions for 2016. Barone says that candidates will first target the states with the closest margins in 2012, so Florida, Ohio, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. Then he says candidates will pick which states to target depending on their characteristics and who they might appeal to, such as Midwestern, Latino, or wealthy white voting blocs.</p>
<p>But Barone’s list of potential target states is still very short. He only lists eight additional states that candidates could choose between, including Democratic and Republican leaning states. Among these states, they all have partisanships close to 50%.</p>
<div align="center">
<table border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><caption>States with Underlying Partisanships Closest to 50% (Republican Partisanship)<a title="" href="file:///C:/Users/FairVote/Downloads/BlogReBaroneBlueWallArticle_Draft_2015_02_18_CED_AD.docx#_edn3">[iii]</a></caption>
<tbody><tr><td width="156" valign="top">
<p><strong>State</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="67" valign="top">
<p><strong>2012</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="67" valign="top">
<p><strong>2008</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="67" valign="top">
<p><strong>2004</strong></p>
</td>
</tr><tr><td width="156" valign="top">
<p>North Carolina</p>
</td>
<td width="67" valign="top">
<p>52.9%</p>
</td>
<td width="67" valign="top">
<p>53.5%</p>
</td>
<td width="67" valign="top">
<p>55.0%</p>
</td>
</tr><tr><td width="156" valign="top">
<p>Florida</p>
</td>
<td width="67" valign="top">
<p>51.5%</p>
</td>
<td width="67" valign="top">
<p>52.2%</p>
</td>
<td width="67" valign="top">
<p>51.3%</p>
</td>
</tr><tr><td width="156" valign="top">
<p>Ohio</p>
</td>
<td width="67" valign="top">
<p>50.4%</p>
</td>
<td width="67" valign="top">
<p>51.3%</p>
</td>
<td width="67" valign="top">
<p>49.8%</p>
</td>
</tr><tr><td width="156" valign="top">
<p>Virginia</p>
</td>
<td width="67" valign="top">
<p>50.0%</p>
</td>
<td width="67" valign="top">
<p>50.5%</p>
</td>
<td width="67" valign="top">
<p>52.9%</p>
</td>
</tr><tr><td width="156" valign="top">
<p>Colorado</p>
</td>
<td width="67" valign="top">
<p>49.2%</p>
</td>
<td width="67" valign="top">
<p>49.2%</p>
</td>
<td width="67" valign="top">
<p>51.1%</p>
</td>
</tr><tr><td width="156" valign="top">
<p>New Hampshire</p>
</td>
<td width="67" valign="top">
<p>49.1%</p>
</td>
<td width="67" valign="top">
<p>48.8%</p>
</td>
<td width="67" valign="top">
<p>48.1%</p>
</td>
</tr><tr><td width="156" valign="top">
<p>Iowa</p>
</td>
<td width="67" valign="top">
<p>49.0%</p>
</td>
<td width="67" valign="top">
<p>48.9%</p>
</td>
<td width="67" valign="top">
<p>49.1%</p>
</td>
</tr><tr><td width="156" valign="top">
<p>Nevada</p>
</td>
<td width="67" valign="top">
<p>48.6%</p>
</td>
<td width="67" valign="top">
<p>47.4%</p>
</td>
<td width="67" valign="top">
<p>50.1%</p>
</td>
</tr><tr><td width="156" valign="top">
<p>Wisconsin</p>
</td>
<td width="67" valign="top">
<p>48.5%</p>
</td>
<td width="67" valign="top">
<p>46.7%</p>
</td>
<td width="67" valign="top">
<p>48.6%</p>
</td>
</tr><tr><td width="156" valign="top">
<p>Minnesota</p>
</td>
<td width="67" valign="top">
<p>48.1%</p>
</td>
<td width="67" valign="top">
<p>48.5%</p>
</td>
<td width="67" valign="top">
<p>47.0%</p>
</td>
</tr><tr><td width="156" valign="top">
<p>Pennsylvania</p>
</td>
<td width="67" valign="top">
<p>47.5%</p>
</td>
<td width="67" valign="top">
<p>51.1%</p>
</td>
<td width="67" valign="top">
<p>47.5%</p>
</td>
</tr><tr><td width="156" valign="top">
<p>Michigan</p>
</td>
<td width="67" valign="top">
<p>47.2%</p>
</td>
<td width="67" valign="top">
<p>45.4%</p>
</td>
<td width="67" valign="top">
<p>47.1%</p>
</td>
</tr><tr><td width="156" valign="top">
<p>New Mexico</p>
</td>
<td width="67" valign="top">
<p>46.9%</p>
</td>
<td width="67" valign="top">
<p>46.1%</p>
</td>
<td width="67" valign="top">
<p>49.2%</p>
</td>
</tr></tbody></table></div>
<p> </p>
<p>The important takeaway is that states’ underlying partisanships matter more to candidates than any other factor. An underlying partisanship close to 50% is a necessary pre-requisite to even make the list of possible battleground states. That list is extremely short, even by Barone’s standards only 12 states. The other 38 states and D.C., many of whom make up the “blue wall,” can expect to be ignored by both the Democratic and Republican campaigns, year after year.</p>
<p>All voters should matter in presidential elections, no matter how Democratic or Republican their states are, and no matter how many times their states’ electoral votes have gone to a certain party. All voices should be heard. The best way to ensure this happens is the National Popular Vote plan. Read more <a href="http://www.fairvote.org/reforms/national-popular-vote/">here</a>.</p>
<div><hr><div>
<p><a title="" href="file:///C:/Users/FairVote/Downloads/BlogReBaroneBlueWallArticle_Draft_2015_02_18_CED_AD.docx#_ednref1">[i]</a> The “blue wall” commonly refers to the 18 states and the District of Columbia that have gone for Democratic candidates for the past six elections. They collectively hold 242 electoral votes, meaning a Democrat need only win 28 more electoral votes to win the election.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p><a title="" href="file:///C:/Users/FairVote/Downloads/BlogReBaroneBlueWallArticle_Draft_2015_02_18_CED_AD.docx#_ednref2">[ii]</a> A state’s underlying partisanship represents the degree to which a state’s percentages of the vote for the two major party president nominees deviates from the national vote shares for those candidates.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p><a title="" href="file:///C:/Users/FairVote/Downloads/BlogReBaroneBlueWallArticle_Draft_2015_02_18_CED_AD.docx#_ednref3">[iii]</a> For more information, see FairVote’s Rob Richie and Andrea Levien, “How the 2012 Presidential Election has Strengthened the Movement for the National Popular Vote Plan,” <em>Presidential Studies Quarterly</em> 43, no. 2 (June) pp. 353-376. Available <a href="http://www.fairvote.org/research-reports/presidential-studies-quarterly/">here</a>.</p>
<p><em>Claire Daviss is a FairVote Democracy Fellow. Follow her <a href="https://twitter.com/ClaireDaviss_FV" target="_blank">@ClaireDaviss_FV</a>.</em></p>
</div>
</div>Mon, 23 Feb 2015 13:21:11 -0500http://www.fairvote.org/research-and-analysis/blog/does-the-candidate-determine-the-battleground-states-in-presidential-elections/Right to Vote Amendment Secures Unanimous Backing of DNC Executive Committeehttp://www.fairvote.org/research-and-analysis/blog/right-to-vote-amendment-secures-unanimous-backing-of-dnc-executive-committee/
<p><img class="left" title="" src="http://www.fairvote.org/assets/Uploads/_resampled/ResizedImage320250-votecartoon.jpg" alt="votecartoon" width="320" height="250">More than a decade ago, FairVote became the leading institutional voice calling for establishing an explicit individual right to vote in the U.S. Constitution, joining academic stars like law professor <a href="http://archive.fairvote.org/media/rtv/Raskin.pdf" target="_blank">Jamin Raskin</a> and historian <a href="http://archive.fairvote.org/media/rtv/keyssar.pdf" target="_blank">Alex Keyssar</a>, journalists like <a href="http://www.thenation.com/blog/174968/scotus-voting-rights-act-decision-means-we-need-amend-constitution" target="_blank">John Nichols</a> and <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/katrina-vanden-heuvel-stopping-the-gop-assault-on-democracy/2012/08/20/796742d2-eb04-11e1-b811-09036bcb182b_story.html" target="_blank">Katrina vanden Heuvel</a>, and elected officials like Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr and his tireless aide Frank Watkins.</p>
<p>We held a <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20040102144817/http://www.democracyusa.org/" target="_blank">major conference</a> organized around the vision of a constitutional right to vote in November 2003 and many subsequent events over the years, including with this <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8IEBgQEzmw#t=29" target="_blank">focused case for the amendment</a> earlier this month by our legal analyst Dania Korkor. We advised drafters of the first right to vote amendment language in 2001 as well as the latest version, <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-joint-resolution/25" target="_blank">HJ Resolution 25</a> sponsored by Wisconsin's Mark Pocan, Minnesota's Keith Ellison and a growing number of other Members. (See <a href="http://www.fairvote.org/research-reports/a-constitutional-right-to-vote-2/" target="_blank">our analysis</a> on amendment language.) We've been particularly focused on how the drive for such an amendment can promote immediate local changes to protect, promote and expand suffrage, with our <a href="http://www.promoteourvote.com/" target="_blank">Promote Our Vote</a> campaign resolutions having stirred concrete actions for change in several jurisdictions.</p>
<p>We believe that the nation coming together to establish such an amendment would go a long way to end the "voting wars" that plague us today. When rules are unclear, it is all too easy for those playing the game to try to push the definition of those rules in their favor. By committing to the fundamental nature of the right to vote, our political leaders can instead focus on what they should do in elections: trying to earn votes from eligible voters, rather than trying to game voter eligibility and access.</p>
<p>For this reason, we're thrilled to see rising support for the amendment, whose key backers of the years have grown to include the <a href="http://www.advancementproject.org/news/entry/advancement-project-supports-proposal-to-amend-u.s.-constitution-and-recogn" target="_blank">Advancement Project</a>, <a href="http://www.righttovoteamendment.com/rainbow-push-coalition.html" target="_blank">Rainbow Push</a>, <a href="http://colorofchange.org/campaign/freetovote/" target="_blank">Color of Change</a> and makers of the movie Electoral Dysfunction (see <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMl0MHFGhE8" target="_blank">Mo Rocca cleverly explain the issue</a>). Our general website on the issue, <a href="http://righttovoteamendment.com/" target="_blank">RightToVoteAmendment.com</a>, highlights new voices and energy for the amendment, including a new <a href="http://www.protectyourvotingrights.com/" target="_blank">petition drive</a> backed by Campaign for America's Future, DailyKos, FairVote Action and more.</p>
<p>This weekend, a major new player emerged: the Democratic National Committee. At its winter meeting, the <a href="http://www.democrats.org/news/press/dnc_members_pass_resolution_calling_for_guaranteeing_right_to_vote" target="_blank">DNC's executive committee unanimously passed</a> a powerfully worded resolution proposed by DNC Vice Chair of Voter Expansion and Protection Donna Brazile that supported the amendment and called for local, state and national action.</p>
<p>This issue should not be one of just the left or just the right. It should not be about whether voting is a responsibility and privilege: of course it is, but above all it is a right. Indeed, the U.S. citizenship test, <a href="http://shusterman.com/naturalizationtest.html" target="_blank">according to this report</a> (see question #87) often includes this question</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><em>Q: What is the most important right granted to U.S. citizens?</em><br><em> A: The right to vote;</em></p>
<p>The right to vote is indeed the right that grounds all other rights. Let's treat it with the respect it deserves. Let's come together to put an explicit right to vote in the U.S. Constitution and statutory changes in its spirit like the <a href="http://www.civilrights.org/action_center/petition-comments/vraa-petition.html">Voting Rights Amendment Act</a>.</p>
<p>As <a href="http://bradblog.com/index.php?p=11048" target="_blank">reported by blogger Brad Friedman</a>, the full resolution as adopted is below:</p>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8000001907349px;">
<div style="color: black; font-family: &#039;times new roman&#039;, times, serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;"><a style="color: #990000;" href="https://www.blogger.com/null"></a><br><div style="background: #f9f7f7; border: 1px solid black; margin: 10px 20px; padding: 15px;">The following Resolution will be considered by the DNC Executive Committee at its meeting in Washington, DC, on February 20, 2015.<br><br> Submitted by: Donna Brazile, DNC Vice Chair/District of Columbia<br> Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, DNC Chair/Florida<br> Christine Pelosi, California<br> Maria Elena Durazo, DNC Vice Chair/California<br> Anita Bonds, Chair, District of Columbia<br> Leah Daughtry, At-Large/New York<br> Bel Leong-Hong, At-Large/Maryland<br> Minyon Moore, At-Large/District of Columbia<br> Virgie Rollins, National Federation of Democratic Women/Michigan<br> Lottie Shackelford, At-Large/Arkansas<br> James Zogby, At-Large/District of Columbia<br><hr>Resolution on a Right-to-Vote Amendment to the U.S. Constitution<br> WHEREAS, in a democracy, the right to vote is a moral imperative, the most fundamental legal right and is protective of all other rights; and<br> WHEREAS, when President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the 1965 Voting Rights Act he said, "The right to vote is the basic right, without which all others are meaningless"; and<br> WHEREAS, each state, except for the State of Arizona, has explicitly enshrined the right to vote with at least some level of protection in its state constitution; and<br> WHEREAS, nowhere in the United States Constitution is there an explicit declaration of the right to vote, which weakens protection in federal courts and undercuts state voting rights protections due to state courts often "lock stepping" rights to the level of support provided federally; and<br> WHEREAS, the United State Supreme Court has called the right to vote a fundamental right, this fundamental right should be explicitly guaranteed to all Americans in the U.S. Constitution; and<br> WHEREAS, as President Barack Obama, as a professor of constitutional law at the University of Chicago, began each of his constitutional law classes sharing with his students the surprising fact that an explicit "federal individual right to vote" is not in the U.S. Constitution; and<br> WHEREAS, the only reference to an individual right to vote in the original U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights is the requirement that any citizen qualified to vote for a member of a state's most "numerous house of the state legislature" is eligible to vote for Members of the House of Representatives; and<br> WHEREAS, the Constitution has been amended 17 times since the passage of the Bill of Rights and 7 of those amendments pertain to voting - 14th, 15th, 17th, 19th, 23rd, 24th and 26th - but none of them add the explicit, fundamental, affirmative, individual, citizenship or federal right to vote to the Constitution; and<br> WHEREAS, three amendments outlaw discrimination in voting, whether on the basis of race (15th) with the 1965 Voting Rights Act serving as the implementing legislation for this amendment 95 years later, sex(19th), or age (26th); and<br> WHEREAS, a right to vote constitutional amendment would fulfill the promise of the 15th, 19th and 26th Amendments; and<br> WHEREAS, of the 119 nations that elect their public officials using some form of democratic elections, 108 have the right to vote in their constitution, but the United States is one of the 11 nations - including Australia, the Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, India, Indonesia, Nauru, Samoa, and the United Kingdom - that does not explicitly contain a citizen's right to vote in its constitution; and<br> WHEREAS, with the exception of certain federal laws such as the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, the Help America Vote Act of 2002 and the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act of 2009, the U.S. has virtually no national uniform standards for voting systems controlled by the states; and<br> WHEREAS, since voting is a state right, with virtually no national uniform standards, we have ended up with multiple and varied election systems in the 50 states (plus the District of Columbia), 3,143 counties (or county equivalents), and about 13,000 local voting jurisdictions that administer about 186,000 precincts, all organized and controlled and managed by local election officials with 86% of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act Preclearance objections involving local, not national or state, voting issues; and<br> WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has unfortunately undermined the right to vote in recent years, notably in its 2013 decision of Shelby County v. Holder which made the preclearance requirement ineffective and, as Freedom Rider, Selma marcher and US Congressman John Lewis so aptly stated, "struck a dagger in the heart of the Voting Rights Act"; and<br> WHEREAS, since 2014 at least 83 restrictive voting rights bills were introduced in 29 states, and the Brennan Center reports that 21 states have enacted restrictive voting laws since 2011, including North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, and Wisconsin, and that in Texas alone this will affect more than 600,000 adult-age citizens who do not have state-issued photo identification; and<br> WHEREAS, voter turnout in November 2014 represented a smaller percentage of eligible voters than in a congressional election since 1942 , voter turnout in many primary elections in 2014 was at an all-time low in more than half of states holding primaries, and voter turnout in some major cities is now in single digits; and<br> WHEREAS, a "right to vote" constitutional amendment applies to and should be supported by all Americans because it is (a) nonpartisan - not Democratic, Republican or independent; (b) non-ideological - not liberal or conservative; (c) non-programmatic - it does not require you to support or oppose any particular legislative program(s); and (d) non-special interest - it's application is not limited to minorities, women, labor, business, seniors, lesbians and gays or any other special interest groups;<br> THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) supports amending the United States Constitution to explicitly guarantee an individual's right to vote; and<br> BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the DNC will encourage state parties to work with state lawmakers and others to access the need to petition for a statewide referendum on the November 2016 general election ballot (and all states where this is possible), advocating to amend the United States Constitution to explicitly guarantee an individual's right to vote; and<br> BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the DNC specifically supports House and Senate Joint Resolutions which would amend the United States Constitution to explicitly guarantee an individual's right to vote - e.g., such as resolution H.J. Res. 25 introduced into the 114th Congress by Congressman Mark Pocan of Wisconsin and Congressman Keith Ellison of Minnesota; and<br> BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the DNC supports H.R. 885 to amend the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to revise the criteria for determining which States and political subdivisions are subject to section 4 of the Act, as introduced in the 114th Congress by Congressman James F. Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin along with 30 cosponsors, including several members of the Congressional Black Caucus; and<br> BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the DNC will educate the general public on this issue by drafting and distributing this resolution in support of amending the United States Constitution to explicitly guarantee an individual's right to vote and sharing the resolution with all appropriate governmental officials; and<br> BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Democratic National Committee encourages other organizations and individuals - e.g., political organizations and leaders, religious organizations and leaders, civil rights organizations and leaders, other civic organizations and leaders, business organizations and leaders, voting rights organizations and leaders, labor organizations and leaders, women's organizations and leaders, youth organizations and leaders, gay and lesbian organizations and leaders, environmental organizations and leaders - to pass organization resolutions to endorse amending the United States Constitution to explicitly guarantee an individual's right to vote; and<br> BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Democratic National Committee will establish a Right to Vote Taskforce to make recommendations on changes in laws, regulations, and practices designed to improve voter participation and better uphold voting rights in local, state, and national elections and consider changes to recommend to state and federal constitutions, statutes, and regulations; and<br>BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Democratic National Committee will continue to work with members of Congress and the Obama Administration to repair the Voting Rights Act of 1965; and continue to work with various Secretaries of State and other election administrators to ensure all eligible citizens have access to the ballot box across the country.</div>
</div>
</div>
<p> </p>Sun, 22 Feb 2015 07:49:29 -0500http://www.fairvote.org/research-and-analysis/blog/right-to-vote-amendment-secures-unanimous-backing-of-dnc-executive-committee/Why Missouri Will Not Be a 2016 Presidential Campaign Battlegroundhttp://www.fairvote.org/research-and-analysis/blog/why-missouri-will-not-be-a-2016-presidential-campaign-battleground/
<p><em>Interested in this topic? <a href="http://org.salsalabs.com/o/2495/p/salsa/web/common/public/signup?signup_page_KEY=5995" target="_blank">Sign up</a> to receive our newsletter and other updates on elections and electoral reform.</em></p>
<hr><p> </p>
<p>For more than a century, Missouri was known as the “bellwether state” because of its tendency to swing between Democratic and Republican presidential candidates. The title was well-earned. FairVote’s analysis of state partisan leanings (based on a state’s partisan deviation from the national average) shows a consistently balanced division in Missouri. </p>
<div align="center">
<table border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><caption>Closely Divided Missouri Partisanship, 1968-2004</caption>
<tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;" width="72">
<p><strong>Year</strong></p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: center;" width="108">
<p><strong>Partisanship</strong></p>
</td>
</tr><tr><td style="text-align: center;" width="72">
<p>1968</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: center;" width="108">
<p>50.2% Republican</p>
</td>
</tr><tr><td style="text-align: center;" width="72">
<p>1972</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: center;" width="108">
<p>50.7% Republican</p>
</td>
</tr><tr><td style="text-align: center;" width="72">
<p>1976</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: center;" width="108">
<p>50.8% Democratic</p>
</td>
</tr><tr><td style="text-align: center;" width="72">
<p>1980</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: center;" width="108">
<p>51.5% Democratic</p>
</td>
</tr><tr><td style="text-align: center;" width="72">
<p>1984</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: center;" width="108">
<p>50.9% Republican</p>
</td>
</tr><tr><td style="text-align: center;" width="72">
<p>1988</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: center;" width="108">
<p>51.9% Democratic</p>
</td>
</tr><tr><td style="text-align: center;" width="72">
<p>1992</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: center;" width="108">
<p>52.3% Democratic</p>
</td>
</tr><tr><td style="text-align: center;" width="72">
<p>1996</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: center;" width="108">
<p>51.1% Republican</p>
</td>
</tr><tr><td style="text-align: center;" width="72">
<p>2000</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: center;" width="108">
<p>51.9% Republican</p>
</td>
</tr><tr><td style="text-align: center;" width="72">
<p>2004</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: center;" width="108">
<p>52.4% Republican</p>
</td>
</tr></tbody></table></div>
<p> </p>
<p>However, recent elections suggest that presidential candidates in 2016 are highly unlikely to target Missouri as a battleground, and, just as in 2012, the state will be nearly completely ignored.</p>
<p>In 2008, the Obama and McCain campaigns devoted significant attention to Missouri, spending more than $9.8 million on ads and holding 20 campaign events in the state. However, Missouri still became more Republican. McCain won the state by 0.13%, despite the fact that Obama won 7.3% more votes nationwide, reflecting a strong year for Democrats overall. Missouri’s underlying partisanship thus rose to 53.7% Republican in 2008.</p>
<p>This Republican lean explains why the Obama and Romney campaigns largely ignored Missouri in the 2012 general election. Total ad spending in the state was only $127,560, just 1.3% of what it was in 2008. Neither candidate, nor either of their running mates, held even one campaign event in the state. Romney won the state by 9.4% despite losing nationally by 4%. As a result, Missouri’s underlying partisanship increased to 56.5% Republican in 2012.</p>
<p><img class="right" title="" src="http://www.fairvote.org/assets/Uploads/_resampled/ResizedImage300210-MissouriPartisanship96-12-2015-02-19-v2.JPG" alt="MissouriPartisanship96 12 2015 02 19 v2" width="300" height="210"></p>
<p>In the 2016 presidential election, Missouri is highly unlikely to regain its battleground status. First, the trend in its partisanship has been steady, becoming more Republican in every election since 1996.</p>
<p>Second, Missouri is unlikely to experience a large enough shift back toward Democrats to make it a swing state. In the 2004, 2008, and 2012 elections, an average of just three states shifted partisanship by more than 5%. In 2012, the only three states shifting at least 4% were small, uncompetitive and ignored.</p>
<p>Third, Democrats have far more inviting targets to build on their base of 242 electoral votes in the "blue wall" 19 states they have won six straight times. They can seek the 28 additional electoral votes needed to win from these states, which have a total of 100 electoral votes.</p>
<div align="center">
<table border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><caption>States Democrats Likely to Target in 2016</caption>
<tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;" width="96">
<p><strong>State</strong></p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: center;" width="96" valign="top">
<p><strong>Electoral Votes</strong></p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: center;" width="120">
<p><strong>Partisanship 2012</strong></p>
</td>
</tr><tr><td style="text-align: center;" width="96">
<p>Nevada</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: center;" width="96" valign="top">
<p align="center">6</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: center;" width="120">
<p>51.5% Democratic</p>
</td>
</tr><tr><td style="text-align: center;" width="96">
<p>Iowa</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: center;" width="96" valign="top">
<p align="center">6</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: center;" width="120">
<p>51.1% Democratic</p>
</td>
</tr><tr><td style="text-align: center;" width="96">
<p>New Hampshire</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: center;" width="96" valign="top">
<p align="center">4</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: center;" width="120">
<p>51.0% Democratic</p>
</td>
</tr><tr><td style="text-align: center;" width="96">
<p>Colorado</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: center;" width="96" valign="top">
<p align="center">9</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: center;" width="120">
<p>50.8% Democratic</p>
</td>
</tr><tr><td style="text-align: center;" width="96">
<p>Virginia</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: center;" width="96" valign="top">
<p align="center">13</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: center;" width="120">
<p>50.1% Democratic</p>
</td>
</tr><tr><td style="text-align: center;" width="96">
<p>Ohio</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: center;" width="96" valign="top">
<p align="center">18</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: center;" width="120">
<p>50.4% Republican</p>
</td>
</tr><tr><td style="text-align: center;" width="96">
<p>Florida</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: center;" width="96" valign="top">
<p align="center">29</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: center;" width="120">
<p>51.4% Republican</p>
</td>
</tr><tr><td style="text-align: center;" width="96">
<p>North Carolina</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: center;" width="96" valign="top">
<p align="center">15</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: center;" width="120">
<p>52.9% Republican</p>
</td>
</tr></tbody></table></div>
<p> </p>
<p>In short, Missouri has joined the growing number of states that have no chance of being a swing state earning campaign attention. Missouri has become just another flyover state, rather than “the bellwether state" it once was.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><em>Download FairVote's Fact Sheet on Missouri <a href="http://www.fairvote.org/[file_link,id=19728]" target="_blank">here</a>. Rob Richie is the Executive Director of FairVote, @Rob_Richie. Claire Daviss is a FairVote Democracy Fellow, @ClaireDaviss_FV.</em></p>Thu, 19 Feb 2015 13:30:26 -0500http://www.fairvote.org/research-and-analysis/blog/why-missouri-will-not-be-a-2016-presidential-campaign-battleground/Voting and Elections Summit 2015 Overviewhttp://www.fairvote.org/research-and-analysis/blog/voting-and-elections-summit-2015-overview/
<p><em>Interested in this topic? <a href="http://org.salsalabs.com/o/2495/p/salsa/web/common/public/signup?signup_page_KEY=5995" target="_blank">Sign up</a> to receive our newsletter and other updates on elections and electoral reform.</em></p>
<hr><h2><strong>Voting and Elections Summit 2015: Overview and Video Links</strong></h2>
<p>The ninth annual Voting and Elections Summit was held on February 5th and 6th. FairVote was pleased to cosponsor this year’s conference, and helped arrange speakers, hold workshops and organize one of the major plenary sessions. The event showcased a great array of speakers/presenters, and produced lively, informative discussions. Here is an overview of the various sessions/workshops, with links to videos of key segments. </p>
<h3><strong>Day 1</strong></h3>
<p><img class="left" title="" src="http://www.fairvote.org/assets/Uploads/_resampled/ResizedImage347188-Ellison.jpg" alt="Ellison" width="347" height="188"></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Congressman Keith Ellison kicked off the first day of the Summit with a <a title="Ellison Keynote" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffZs11Yhn1Y" target="_blank">Keynote speech</a> that highlighted his support for a right to vote amendment in the U.S. Constitution and statutory electoral reforms like ranked choice voting. “If people are fighting to keep us from voting,” Ellison stated, “we need to fight to keep our vote.”</p>
<p> </p>
<p><img class="left" title="" src="http://www.fairvote.org/assets/Uploads/_resampled/ResizedImage326181-Krist-and-Mike.jpg" alt="Krist and Mike" width="326" height="181"></p>
<p>FairVote held an afternoon session called “Making 227 Million Votes Count in Every Election.” Our speakers featured an introduction to each of the core proposals of our Reform 2020 agenda, including a right to vote amendment, National Popular Vote plan for president, ranked choice voting and fair representation for Congress and lively two-person “democracy dialogues”. </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Below are links to each of the FairVote segments, with short descriptions.</p>
<h4>Featured panels:</h4>
<p><strong><img class="left" title="" src="http://www.fairvote.org/assets/Uploads/_resampled/ResizedImage308231-photo-4-3.JPG" alt="Valerie Irvine John Fortier" width="308" height="231"></strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p><a title="Irvine and Fortier" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJgMyWnc9jg"><strong>Electoral Reform and the Presidential Commission on Election Administration</strong></a></p>
<p> In this panel, Valerie Irvine, executive director of Center for Working Families, and John Fortier, director of the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Democracy Project, discussed electoral reform, specifically how to address it using the Presidential Commission on Election Administration. </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong><img class="right" title="" src="http://www.fairvote.org/assets/Uploads/_resampled/ResizedImage311233-Krist-and-Mike-other.JPG" alt="Krist and Mike other" width="311" height="233"><a title="Krist and Mike Lind" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kldFy376xWQ" target="_blank"></a></strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong><a title="Krist and Mike Lind" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kldFy376xWQ" target="_blank">Opening Up the Ballot and Fair Representation Elections</a></strong></p>
<p>In this panel, Krist Novoselic, chair of FairVote’s Board of Directors and Michael Lind, policy director of the New America Foundation’ Economic Growth Program, discussed what drew them to FairVote’s reforms, and explored the potential of proportional representation as an election reform.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kldFy376xWQ"> </a></p>
<p> </p>
<p><img class="left" title="" src="http://www.fairvote.org/assets/Uploads/_resampled/ResizedImage306230-Dave-and-jeanne-z-drive.JPG" alt="Dave and jeanne z drive" width="306" height="230"><a title="Dave and Jeanne" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MQjd94XnwY" target="_blank"></a></p>
<p> </p>
<p><a title="Dave and Jeanne" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MQjd94XnwY" target="_blank"><strong>Ranked Choice Voting from the Political Left, Right and Center</strong></a></p>
<p>In this panel, Dave Meslin, founder of Ranked Ballot Initiative of Toronto, and Jeanne Massey, executive director of FairVote Minnesota, addressed ranked choice voting as an electoral reform solution, and explored the benefits that the system can bring to campaigns/elections.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong><img class="right" title="" src="http://www.fairvote.org/assets/Uploads/_resampled/ResizedImage302227-Cindy-and-Michele-Jawando-Z-drive.JPG" alt="Cindy and Michele Jawando Z drive" width="302" height="227"></strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p><a title="Cindy and Michele Jawando" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtOWmRHhYyE"><strong>How to Make Our Elected Leaders More Representative of Women, Racial Minorities and Our Full Diversity</strong></a></p>
<p>In this panel, Cynthia Terrell, director of FairVote’s Representation 2020 program, spoke with Michele Jawando, vice president for Legal Progress at the Center for American Progress, about how to leverage electoral reforms so that they produce governments with diverse representation.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p><img class="left" title="" src="http://www.fairvote.org/assets/Uploads/_resampled/ResizedImage300225-Jamie-and-Josh-Silver-z-drive.JPG" alt="Jamie and Josh Silver z drive" width="300" height="225"><a title="Jamie Raskin and Josh Silver" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LB0qDEl0i5o"></a></p>
<p> </p>
<p><a title="Jamie Raskin and Josh Silver" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LB0qDEl0i5o"><strong>Building a Pro-democracy Movement</strong></a></p>
<p>In this panel, Jamie Raskin, a state senator from Maryland and professor at Washington College of Law, discussed the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact and how it can be used to fix presidential elections with Josh Silver, director of Represent.US.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LB0qDEl0i5o"> </a></p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<h4>“Bridge” presentations by FairVote staff:</h4>
<p><strong><img class="left" title="" src="http://www.fairvote.org/assets/Uploads/_resampled/ResizedImage241255-dania-other.jpg" alt="dania other" width="241" height="255"></strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong><strong> <a title="Dania bridge" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8IEBgQEzmw%20" target="_blank">Dania Korkor, Constitutional Right to Vote</a></strong></strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p><img class="left" title="" src="http://www.fairvote.org/assets/Uploads/_resampled/ResizedImage258344-Drew-z-drive.JPG" alt="Drew z drive" width="258" height="344"></p>
<p style="text-align: left;"> </p>
<p style="text-align: left;"> </p>
<p style="text-align: left;"> </p>
<p style="text-align: left;"><strong><a title="drew bridge" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qX9HIaS1oI" target="_blank">Drew Spencer, Fair Representation</a></strong></p>
<p style="text-align: left;"> </p>
<p style="text-align: left;"> </p>
<p style="text-align: left;"> </p>
<p style="text-align: left;"> </p>
<p style="text-align: left;"> </p>
<p style="text-align: left;"> </p>
<p style="text-align: left;"> </p>
<p style="text-align: left;"> </p>
<p style="text-align: left;"> </p>
<p style="text-align: left;"> </p>
<p style="text-align: left;"><strong><img class="left" title="" src="http://www.fairvote.org/assets/Uploads/_resampled/ResizedImage249332-Grace-RCV-z-drive.JPG" alt="Grace RCV z drive" width="249" height="332"></strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p><a title="Grace bridge" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFgYlTrsppM" target="_blank"><strong>Grace Ramsey, Ranked Choice Voting</strong></a></p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p><img class="left" title="" src="http://www.fairvote.org/assets/Uploads/_resampled/ResizedImage257343-amaris-z-drive.JPG" alt="amaris z drive" width="257" height="343"></p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p><a title="Amaris bridge" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpy6IQ0ocw0" target="_blank"><strong>Amaris Montes, Representation 2020 Program</strong></a></p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong><img class="left" title="" src="http://www.fairvote.org/assets/Uploads/_resampled/ResizedImage263351-claire-z-drive.JPG" alt="claire z drive" width="263" height="351"></strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p><a title="Claire bridge" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er20Nz58T2g%20" target="_blank"><strong>Claire Daviss, National Popular Vote</strong></a></p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p style="text-align: center;"> </p>
<p style="text-align: center;"> </p>
<p style="text-align: center;"> </p>
<p style="text-align: center;"> </p>
<p style="text-align: center;">The day had other strong presentations and panels.</p>
<p><strong><a title="susan welcome" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFB4wXrYjps" target="_blank">Welcome from US Vote Foundation’s Susan Dzieduszycka-Suinat</a> </strong></p>
<p><strong><img class="right" title="" src="http://www.fairvote.org/assets/Uploads/_resampled/ResizedImage336186-US-Vote-Foundation-Session-Day-1.jpg" alt="US Vote Foundation Session Day 1" width="336" height="186"></strong></p>
<p>US Vote Foundation also held a morning session entitled “Breakthrough Ideas - The Promise of Tech and Innovation to Engage Voters.” Speakers explored emerging voting technologies that ranged from POPVOX to internet voting/security. Additionally, there were four, two minute “bridge” presentations between each discussion.</p>
<p>To see videos for all this session’s presentations click <a title="us vote day 1 session" href="http://ow.ly/ITvTj" target="_blank">here.</a></p>
<p><img class="left" title="" src="http://www.fairvote.org/assets/Uploads/_resampled/ResizedImage354195-Lawyers-Comm-Roundtable-Day-1.jpg" alt="Lawyers Comm Roundtable Day 1" width="354" height="195"></p>
<p> </p>
<p>The Lawyers Committee held a session on engaging and protecting the American voter called “Talk Voting to Me,” which featured a roundtable discussion.</p>
<p>To see videos for all this session’s presentations click <a title="Lawyers comm day 1 session" href="http://ow.ly/ITvTj" target="_blank">here</a>. <a title="us vote day 1 session" href="http://ow.ly/ITvTj" target="_blank"></a></p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p style="text-align: center;">For full list of speakers, go to this <a title="full list of speakers" href="http://ow.ly/IPUYO" target="_blank">link</a>. </p>
<p><img class="right" title="" src="http://www.fairvote.org/assets/Uploads/_resampled/ResizedImage375210-cardenas.jpg" alt="cardenas" width="375" height="210"></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Vanessa Cardenas, Vice President of Progress 2050, Center for American Progress delivered the afternoon <a title="cardenas keynote" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkGEYv8Xs7Q%20" target="_blank">Keynote address</a>, in which she discussed America’s changing demographics and the impact that would have on voting in the future. </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p><img class="right" title="" src="http://www.fairvote.org/assets/Uploads/_resampled/ResizedImage380210-overseas-vote-foundation-roundtable-day-1.jpg" alt="overseas vote foundation roundtable day 1" width="380" height="210"></p>
<p>The Overseas Vote Foundation concluded the first day with a session entitled “Focus on Overseas and Military Voting.” Speakers, including FairVote’s Rob Richie, explored the challenges that overseas and military voters face, as well as potential solutions for addressing these challenges, like ranked choice voting.</p>
<p>To see videos for all this session’s presentations click <a title="overseas session day 1" href="http://www.fairvote.org/%20http:/ow.ly/ITvTj" target="_blank">here</a>.</p>
<p> </p>
<h3>Day 2<a title="us vote day 1 session" href="http://ow.ly/ITvTj" target="_blank"></a></h3>
<p>The second day of the conference represented a great chance for people to roll up their sleeves and learn more about how to get involved. FairVote had one group engage in an all-day strategy session on ranked choice voting, and also sponsored two workshops.</p>
<p><img class="left" title="" src="http://www.fairvote.org/assets/Uploads/_resampled/ResizedImage374266-FairVoteAMWorkshop3.jpg" alt="FairVoteAMWorkshop3" width="374" height="266"></p>
<p> </p>
<p><em>Morning Workshops</em></p>
<p>FairVote: <strong>The Right to Vote: A Constitutional Right, A Local Opportunity</strong></p>
<p>This workshop placed FairVote’s Promote Our Vote project in the spotlight. Breakout discussion period topics included engaging youth locally, expanding local access to the vote, and structural reforms. </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Lawyers’ Committee: <strong>Mind the Match: A look at how and why voter registration applications are rejected</strong></p>
<p>Discussion for this workshop addressed the voter registration application process and what best practices might be utilized to protect voters more efficiently. Topics included the Help America’s Voters Act database matching requirements and online voting as a solution.</p>
<p>Overseas Vote Foundation: <strong>End-to-End Verifiable Internet Voting: Promises, Capabilities, and Risks.</strong></p>
<p>This workshop centered on state-of-the-art verifiable voting internet technology. Topics of discussion included impact on security, promises of the technology, and challenges/cost-effective solutions.</p>
<p><em><img class="right" title="" src="http://www.fairvote.org/assets/Uploads/_resampled/ResizedImage368262-FairVotePMWkShp1.jpg" alt="FairVotePMWkShp1" width="368" height="262"></em></p>
<p> </p>
<p><em>Afternoon Workshops</em></p>
<p>FairVote: <strong>Introduction to Structural Reform: Thinking Nationally, Acting in Your Community</strong></p>
<p> This workshop focused on FairVote’s fair representation voting plan and ranked choice voting as a feasible, necessary structural reform for the negative impacts inflicted by winner-take-all voting systems. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Lawyers’ Committee: <strong>Creating Connections: How advocacy groups and election officials can work together to improve and administer elections</strong></p>
<p>Discussions for this workshop addressed how advocacy groups and election officials can better collaborate to effectively improve election administration.</p>
<p>US Vote Foundation: <strong>"Appreciative Inquiry" Brainstorming Session on Civic Engagement</strong></p>
<p>This workshop focused on historic voting moments and how best to learn from them to make elections/voting work better. Interactive brainstorming sessions were used for participants to reflect and create a list of best practices.</p>Fri, 13 Feb 2015 15:55:29 -0500http://www.fairvote.org/research-and-analysis/blog/voting-and-elections-summit-2015-overview/New Report! Fuzzy Math: Wrong Way Reforms for Allocating Electoral Voteshttp://www.fairvote.org/research-and-analysis/blog/new-report-fuzzy-math/
<p><em>Interested in this topic? <a href="http://org.salsalabs.com/o/2495/p/salsa/web/common/public/signup?signup_page_KEY=5995" target="_blank">Sign up</a> to receive our newsletter and other updates on elections and electoral reform.</em></p>
<hr><p><img class="center" title="Source: Marques Stewart, Presidential Elections 2012, Flickr Commons." src="http://www.fairvote.org/assets/Uploads/_resampled/ResizedImage550412-DemocracyPlaza.jpg" alt="DemocracyPlaza" width="550" height="412"></p>
<p>Most Americans realize that the Electoral College system used to elect the president is broken. Almost all states allocate their electoral votes using a winner-take-all system, in which the winner of the most votes statewide will also win all of the state’s electoral votes. This system comes with unfortunate results. Candidates focus only on a small handful of battleground states, leaving two-thirds of states as spectators in presidential elections. Sizable minorities do not have their individual votes reflected in state electoral votes. Voters in spectator states have little reason to turnout.</p>
<p>The Constitution allows states to choose how to allocate their Electoral College votes, and many states have considered alternative systems. Two of the main alternative systems are the whole number proportional system and the congressional district system.</p>
<p>With the whole number proportional system, a state would give each candidate a whole number of electoral votes proportionate to the candidate’s share of the statewide vote. For example, if a candidate wins 40% of the vote in a state with 10 electoral votes, he or she will win 4 electoral votes.</p>
<p>With the congressional district system, a state would give each candidate one electoral vote for every congressional district the candidate wins, and two electoral votes to the candidate that wins the statewide vote.</p>
<p>In a newly updated report, <a href="http://www.fairvote.org/research-reports/fuzzy-math/"><em>Fuzzy Math: Wrong Way Reforms for Allocating Electoral Votes</em></a>, Rob Richie and I take a closer look at these two alternative systems. We ask what would have happened in previous elections if every state had been using the whole number proportional system or the congressional district system. The answer is clear. The systems endanger majority rule, decrease the competitiveness of elections, and damage voter equality.</p>
<p>In some cases, the alternative systems could have resulted in completely different results. For example, the congressional district system would have led to Mitt Romney winning the election over Barack Obama in 2012, despite the fact that Romney won five million fewer votes nationwide. Results like these reflect another concern about both alternative systems: that they appear partisan, rather than neutral, fair, and democratic.</p>
<p><img class="center" title="" src="http://www.fairvote.org/assets/Uploads/_resampled/ResizedImage550248-FuzzyMath-2012CDResults.png" alt="FuzzyMath 2012CDResults" width="550" height="248"></p>
<p>The current way that states allocate electoral votes is problematic. But states should not jump to alternative systems that are unfair, undemocratic, and biased. FairVote supports the adoption of the national popular vote instead. Under the national popular vote plan, the winner of the most votes in all fifty states and the District of Columbia wins the presidential election. The system ensures that majority rule is upheld, nationwide competitiveness is encouraged, and all voters are equal, regardless of where they live in the U.S. </p>
<p>Adopting the national popular vote plan is easy. States only need to sign onto the <a href="http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/">National Popular Vote Interstate Compact</a>. The compact goes into effect when enough states have signed it such that they collectively have 270 electoral votes, which is the minimum number of electoral votes a presidential candidate needs to win.</p>
<p>States have the potential to fix a broken Electoral College system. We hope that this research will help them make the decision that is best for the United States and its democratic traditions.</p>
<p>View the complete report <a href="http://www.fairvote.org/research-reports/fuzzy-math/" target="_blank">here</a>.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><em>Claire Daviss is a FairVote Democracy Fellow. Follower her on Twitter <a href="https://twitter.com/ClaireDaviss_FV" target="_blank">@ClaireDaviss_FV</a>.</em></p>
<p> </p>Wed, 28 Jan 2015 13:27:05 -0500http://www.fairvote.org/research-and-analysis/blog/new-report-fuzzy-math/Voting and Elections Summit 2015: FairVote Highlightshttp://www.fairvote.org/research-and-analysis/blog/fairvote-highlights-of-the-2015-voting-and-elections-summit/
<h2 dir="ltr">Thursday, February 5th <img class="right" title="" src="http://www.fairvote.org/assets/Uploads/_resampled/ResizedImage299130-Summit-2015-Image.jpg" alt="Summit 2015 Image" width="299" height="130"></h2>
<h1 dir="ltr"><strong>At George Washington University: Jack Morton Auditorium, Media &amp; Public Affairs Building, George Washington University, 805 21st Street NW</strong></h1>
<p> </p>
<h1><strong>Opening Keynote Address: Rep. Keith Ellison, 8:45 am - 9:15 am</strong></h1>
<p dir="ltr">Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison, a FairVote democracy champion in 2013, prominent backer of ranked choice voting, and co-sponsor of a right to vote amendment in the Constitution, makes the opening speech.</p>
<p><strong>FairVote presentsMaking 227 Million Votes Count in Every Election, 2:30-4:15 pm</strong></p>
<p dir="ltr">Fairvote is hosting a plenary session which will include five 20-minute interviews that will cover FairVote’s core reform proposals. Here are the topics and speakers: </p>
<p dir="ltr"><strong><em>Welcome</em>: </strong>Rob Richie, FairVote Executive Director</p>
<p dir="ltr"><strong><em>Electoral reform and the Presidential Commission on Election Administration</em> </strong><strong>Valerie Ervin</strong>, Executive Director, Center for Working Families talks with <strong>John Fortier</strong>, Director of the Democracy Project, Bipartisan Policy Center</p>
<p dir="ltr"><strong><em>Opening up the ballot and fair representation elections </em> </strong><strong> </strong> <br class="kix-line-break"><strong>Michael Lind</strong>, Policy Directory of the Economic Growth Program, New America Foundation talks with <strong>Krist Novoselic</strong>, Chair of Board of Directors, FairVote</p>
<p dir="ltr"><em><strong>Ranked choice voting from the political left, right and center</strong> </em> <br class="kix-line-break"><strong>Paul Jacob</strong>, President, Citizens in Charge Foundation talks with <strong>Jeanne Massey</strong>, Executive Director, FairVote Minnesota</p>
<p dir="ltr"><strong><em>How to achieve a democracy that reflects women, racial minorities, and our full diversity</em> </strong><strong>Cynthia Terrell</strong>, Director, Representation 2020 talks with <strong>Michele Jawando</strong>, Vice President for Legal Progress, Center for American Progress</p>
<p dir="ltr"><em><strong>Building a pro-democracy movement </strong></em> <br class="kix-line-break"><strong>Josh Silver</strong>, Director, Represent.US talks with <strong>Jamie Raskin</strong>, State Senator, Maryland and professor at Washington College of Law</p>
<p dir="ltr">There will be 2-minute "bridge" presentations between dialogues on ranked choice voting from Dave Meslin (Ranked Ballot Initiative of Toronto), fair representation voting from Drew Spencer (FairVote), representation of women from Amaris Montes (FairVote), the National Popular Vote plan from Claire Daviss (FairVote) and right to vote amendment from Dania Korkor (FairVote).</p>
<p dir="ltr"><a href="https://www.etouches.com/ereg/index.php?eventid=109759&amp;">Register Here</a></p>
<h2 dir="ltr">Friday, February 6th</h2>
<p dir="ltr"><strong>At Winston &amp; Strawn, 1700 K St NW, 12th Floor, Washington, DC</strong></p>
<p dir="ltr">FairVote staff will run workshops on our reforms that will equip attendees with the necessary tools and strategies to bring FairVote reforms back to their communities.</p>
<p><strong> The Right to Vote: A Constitutional Right, A Local Opportunity, 9:30-11:15 am</strong></p>
<p dir="ltr">To protect voting rights for all, and address historically low voter turnout in local elections, this workshop will spotlight FairVote's Promote Our Vote project. Promote Our Vote is a model for local action to establish a Right to Vote in the U.S. Constitution, and in that spirit, improve civic participation and engagement. The session will feature experts working to extend voting rights to 16 and 17 year old residents in Maryland municipalities, as well as collaborative brainstorming around practices and policies to improve local democracy. Discussion topics will include engaging youth, outreach to less engaged segments of the electorate, expanding local access to the vote, and structural reforms for local policymakers.</p>
<p dir="ltr"><strong>Introduction to Structural Reform: Thinking Nationally, Acting in Your Community, 1:30-3:15 pm</strong> </p>
<p dir="ltr">Building on the lessons learned from previous discussions and workshops, this workshop will focus on improving electoral systems in order to foster improved representation and governance. This "teach-in" workshop uses the example of the U.S. Congress to make the case for why winner-take-all elections can result in unrepresentative and broken government, and how the use of ranked choice voting - both in multi-winner elections as form of fair representation voting and in single-winner elections - represents an effective fix to gridlock and polarization. We’ll also discuss the positive implications of our reforms for the representation of women and minorities in elected office. Although Congress will be used as an example, this session will demonstrate how you can bring ranked choice voting and all its benefits to your city council, county government, and state offices.</p>
<p dir="ltr"><a href="https://www.etouches.com/ereg/index.php?eventid=109759&amp;">Register Here</a></p>
<p> </p>Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:21:44 -0500http://www.fairvote.org/research-and-analysis/blog/fairvote-highlights-of-the-2015-voting-and-elections-summit/The Worst Ballot Access Laws in the United Stateshttp://www.fairvote.org/research-and-analysis/blog/the-worst-ballot-access-laws-in-the-united-states/
<p><img class="left" title="" src="http://www.fairvote.org/assets/Uploads/_resampled/ResizedImage300168-Ballot-Access-Petition-570x320.jpg" alt="Ballot Access Petition 570x320" width="300" height="168">Ballot access laws define the scope of voter choice. For democracy to function, every viable candidate should be able to compete, and every election should meaningfully reflect diverse viewpoints, which is why FairVote includes <a href="http://www.fairvote.org/assets/Policy-Guide/Reasonable-Ballot-Access-Policy-Brief.pdf" target="_blank">Reasonable Ballot Access</a> among its key policies for promoting democratic values in its <a href="http://www.fairvote.org/research-and-analysis/policy-guide-2015/">Policy Guide 2015</a>.</p>
<p>The leading expert on ballot access laws in the United States is Richard Winger, editor of <a href="http://www.ballot-access.org/">Ballot Access News</a>. He is a longtime ally of FairVote - in fact, I had the opportunity to interview him for <a href="http://www.fairvote.org/assets/12.04.2012-Richard-Winger.mp3">the inaugural episode</a> of FairVote's podcast, <a href="http://www.fairvote.org/fairvote-voices">FairVote Voices</a>, back in December of 2012.</p>
<p>Today, we are proud to publish this list of the 19 worst ballot access laws in the United States, authored by Richard Winger. Ballot access law is state law; every state can decide how candidates achieve representation on their ballots, so the list goes state by state in alphabetical order:</p>
<ol><li>Alabama. A new party, or a statewide independent candidate (for all office except president) needs a petition of 3% of the last gubernatorial vote. No one has managed to complete this petition since it came into existence in 1997 except the Libertarians in 2000. Furthermore, if a party does get on, it needs to poll 20% of the vote for any statewide office to stay on. Furthermore, the petition deadline in presidential years is in March.</li>
<li>Arizona. A long section of the election code, passed in 1961 and declared unconstitutional in 1973, bans the Communist Party from the ballot and also says no one has a right to try to persuade someone of the virtues of communism. The law describes the "international communistic conspiracy" and makes reference to Cuba. I have asked legislators to repeal this, repeatedly, for 10 years, and even though sometimes a legislator says they will introduce a bill to repeal it, they never do.</li>
<li>D.C. requires exactly 3,000 signatures to get on the general election ballot for any districtwide partisan office except president. But president needs about 4,700 valid signatures. D.C. also provides that a write-in presidential candidate may file a declaration of write-in candidacy, and the names of three candidates for presidential elector. But if someone uses this procedure, D.C. still won't count his or her write-in votes! This appears to contradict Bush v Gore, but the US District Court and US Court of Appeals still upheld that policy.</li>
<li>Florida has very tolerant ballot access for every type of candidate, and doesn't require any petition, with the sole exception of an independent presidential candidate, who needs about 110,000 signatures by early July.</li>
<li>Georgia's petition for US House and state legislature, 5% of the number of registered voters, is so severe, no legislative candidate successfully used the procedure in 2012 except for one candidate for the State House, Bill Bozarth. Incumbent independents don't need to petition, so Rusty Kidd didn't petition in 2012. No independent has successfully submitted the 5% petition for US House since 1964, and back in 1964, the petition wasn't due until October, the signatures weren't checked, they didn't need to be notarized, and no filing fee was needed. In 1964 the law was made worse (effective 1965). The petitions are now due in July, and each sheet must be notarized, and anyone who notarizes any sheets may not petition himself or herself, and a fee equal to 3% of the annual office salary is also needed. No minor party has ever complied with the 5% petition, which was passed in 1943. In special elections no petition is needed. Billy McKinney got on as an independent for one US House in 1982 but because redistricting was late that year, he only needed a 1.3% petition.</li>
<li>Hawaii requires an independent candidate (for office other than president) to poll 10% in the open primary (or else to outpoll the winner of one of the partisan primaries for the same office). Very few voters choose an independent primary ballot because generally that ballot has no candidates at all on it.</li>
<li>Illinois requires newly-qualifying parties to identify their nominees on the petition before the petition can circulate. Furthermore, separate petitions are required for each district and county office. So a new party that wanted to run a full slate of candidates for all federal and state offices would need one statewide petition, and a separate petition in each US House district, and State Senate district, and State House district. The petitions can only circulate for 3 months and are due in June. The district and county petitions are 5% of the last vote cast. So a new party would need several hundred thousand signatures, and circulators would need to ask signers on the street to sign 4 separate petitions, if working in a district with a State Senate up that year. They would also need more signatures on county office petitions.</li>
<li>Maine petitions for a member of a small qualified party to get on his or her own primary ballot are very severe: 2,000 signatures of party members for statewide office, even if the party might only have a few thousand members.</li>
<li>Maryland requires four times as many signatures for a statewide independent as an entire new party.</li>
<li>Massachusetts has the same problem as Maine, but the statewide primary petitions for US Senator, Governor, Lieutenant Governor, are 10,000 signatures. Only party members and registered independents can sign. Both Maine and Massachusetts are irrational for not taking a party's size (number of registered voters) into account.</li>
<li>Montana requires a statewide non-presidential independent candidate to submit a petition of 5% of the winner's vote, which means up to 17,000 signatures are sometimes required. But an entire new party can get on with 5,000 signatures exactly.</li>
<li>New Hampshire requires a party petition to be signed by 3% of the last gubernatorial vote, and it is illegal to circulate such a petition in an odd year.</li>
<li>New Mexico requires the nominees of small ballot-qualified parties to submit a petition, after they are nominated. This makes no sense whatsoever, but the petitions are 1% of the last gubernatorial vote. If New Mexico required the winner of a major party primary to submit a petition for general election ballot access after winning the primary, people would laugh at the very thought of such a law, but that is what New Mexico does to minor parties.</li>
<li>North Carolina requires statewide independents to submit a petition signed by 2% of the last gubernatorial vote, which is about 90,000 signatures. The signatures are due in June. No statewide independent has ever qualified in North Carolina, except Ross Perot in 1992. North Carolina requires independent candidates for district office to submit a petition of 4% of the number of registered voters. No independent for US House has ever appeared on a government-printed ballot in North Carolina.</li>
<li>North Dakota requires a small qualified party, which must nominate by primary, to attract a large number of voters to choose its primary ballot, or it can't nominate anyone for state legislature. The formula is 1% of the population of the district (that includes children and other ineligible to vote). That sounds easy but in effect it requires about 15% of the actual primary voters to choose a minor party's primary ballot. There have been no minor party legislative nominees on the November ballot since 1976.</li>
<li>Oklahoma requires a newly-qualifying party to submit a petition signed by 5% of the last vote cast. No one has ever complied with this petition in a midterm year, when the petition burden is far greater because turnout in presidential years is so much higher than in midterm years. A party must poll 10% for President/Governor in order to stay on. No one can register into an unqualified party, except if a party ever does get on, and it fails the vote test and goes off, anyone can re-register into that party for the following two years. But all the party's registrants are removed when it fails to get 10% and must re-register.</li>
<li>Pennsylvania requires a party to have a membership of at least 15% of the statewide registration to remain on the ballot. If this law were in effect in Rhode Island, DC, or Massachusetts, Republicans would be off the ballot. If it were in existence in Idaho and Utah, Democrats would be off the ballot. Also Pennsylvania puts petitioning groups at risk of paying court costs of over $100,000 if they submit a petition that is found not to have enough valid signatures.</li>
<li>South Dakota requires a member of a small ballot-qualified party running in a primary for Governor, US Senator, US House, or Lieutenant Governor, to submit a petition of 250 party members. If a party only has 500 or so registered members, that is virtually impossible. Also a legislative candidate needs 50 signatures of party members.</li>
<li>Texas requires independent presidential candidates to submit a petition of 1% of the last presidential vote, whereas an independent candidate for any other statewide office needs 1% of the last gubernatorial vote. The difference can be up to 40%. Independent candidate petitions are due weeks before the minor party petition is due.</li>
</ol>Tue, 13 Jan 2015 16:03:02 -0500http://www.fairvote.org/research-and-analysis/blog/the-worst-ballot-access-laws-in-the-united-states/And the winner is...Ranked Choice Votinghttp://www.fairvote.org/research-and-analysis/blog/and-the-winner-is-ranked-choice-voting/
<p dir="ltr"><em>Interested in this topic? <a href="http://org.salsalabs.com/o/2495/p/salsa/web/common/public/signup?signup_page_KEY=5995" target="_blank">Sign up</a> to receive our newsletter and other updates on elections and electoral reform.</em></p>
<hr><p dir="ltr"> It’s that time of year again! In just nine days this year’s Oscar nominees will be announced by The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Ballots were mailed out for nominations in late December, 2014.</p>
<p dir="ltr">The Oscars are among the most prestigious awards in the world of cinema, celebrating excellence and innovation in filmmaking. What may be less well-known is that these awards also demonstrate <a href="http://oscarvotes123.blogspot.com/">excellence and innovation in voting</a>.</p>
<p dir="ltr">The nominees for every major category are chosen by <a href="http://www.fairvote.org/reforms/instant-runoff-voting/">ranked choice voting</a>. Because multiple nominees are chosen for each category, multi-seat ranked choice voting - a form of fair representation voting - is used to select nominees. <a href="http://www.fairvote.org/reforms/fair-representation-voting/">Fair representation voting</a> ensures that more voters will be able to elect a candidate they prefer. In the context of the Oscars, it means that voters with widely varying preferences will be able to see at least one of their favorite films get a key nomination.</p>
<p dir="ltr">In 2009 The Academy decided to increase the maximum number of nominees for Best Picture from 5 to 10. Increasing the number of nominees posed a challenge in ensuring the ultimate winner accurately represented the views of the voters. If only a plurality of votes were required to win Best Picture, a film could win one of the most distinguished awards in the film industry with just over 10% of the vote, leaving this coveted award at risk of strategic voting or an unrepresentative winner. To ensure that the winner was elected with consensus support, The Academy decided to use ranked choice voting to determine the winner for Best Picture.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Ranked choice voting is similar to a runoff system, but even better. Voters rank candidates in order of preference. When votes are counted, candidates are eliminated one by one starting with the candidate with the fewest first choice rankings, and the eliminated candidates’ votes then get added to the totals of the next choice on each ballot. The process continues until one nominee has over half of the votes. Once a candidate has a majority of the active votes they are declared the winner.</p>
<p dir="ltr"><img class="right" title="" src="http://www.fairvote.org/assets/Uploads/matthew-mcconaughey.jpg" alt="matthew mcconaughey" width="303" height="166">The process used by the Academy to choose Best Picture use this model to ensure that a film with more consensus support actually wins the award. Ranked choice voting makes the Oscars more fair and competitive. A movie with strong support from just a few voters will not defeat a movie that has a broader base of support among the entire academy. That’s why ranked choice voting continues to be promoted for elections more generally, including being <a href="http://www.fairvote.org/reforms/instant-runoff-voting/where-instant-runoff-is-used/roberts-rules-of-order/">recommended by Roberts Rules of Order</a>.</p>
<p>Ranked choice voting allows for greater choice in nominees without sacrificing election integrity or confidence in results. </p>
<p dir="ltr">To learn more about how ranked choice voting is used at the Academy Awards go to FairVote's <a href="http://oscarvotes123.blogspot.com/">Oscar Votes 123</a> blog.</p>
<p> </p>Tue, 06 Jan 2015 16:00:13 -0500http://www.fairvote.org/research-and-analysis/blog/and-the-winner-is-ranked-choice-voting/Hyattsville Extends Voting Rights to 16 and 17 Year Oldshttp://www.fairvote.org/research-and-analysis/blog/hyattsville-extends-voting-rights-to-16-and-17-year-olds/
<p><em><img class="left" title="" src="http://www.fairvote.org/assets/Uploads/_resampled/ResizedImage300207-Voting-Age-Hearing-Hyattsville.png" alt="Voting Age Hearing Hyattsville" width="300" height="207">Interested in this topic? <a href="http://org.salsalabs.com/o/2495/p/salsa/web/common/public/signup?signup_page_KEY=5995" target="_blank">Sign up</a> to receive our newsletter and other updates on elections and electoral reform.</em></p>
<hr><p>Around 11:15 pm last evening, January 5th, 2015, the Hyattsville City Council became the second city in the U.S. to extend voting rights to 16 and 17 year old residents for city elections. The much anticipated vote—which will require a second reading and confirmation vote on January 20th—came after almost two hours of discussion at a public hearing hosted by the council. Dozens of individuals contributed their thoughts on the matter, with an overwhelming majority expressing their support for expanding the franchise and lowering the voting age to 16 for Hyattsville elections.</p>
<p dir="ltr">With the City Council’s meeting room packed tight, speakers made a wide range of persuasive arguments in support of lowering the voting age. First, <a href="http://www.promoteourvote.com/uploads/9/2/2/7/9227685/leaving_the_nest_and_the_social_act_of_voting.pdf" target="_blank">empirical evidence</a> suggests that the earlier in life a voter casts their first ballot, the more likely they are to develop voting as a habit. By lowering the voting age to 16, young people will be engaged meaningfully in the democratic process <em>while</em> they are taking civics courses, and <em>before</em> many of them leave their home communities for college. This is key for young voters, who would likely struggle registering and voting on their own, often in an unfamiliar community shortly after graduating from high school. Voting at 16 allows students to cast their first vote in the community that they grew up in and care most about.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Second, while your first reaction might be to question the ability of young voters to cast an informed vote, <a href="http://ann.sagepub.com/content/633/1/201.abstract" target="_blank">research shows</a> that they are ready. Experts in the field contend that 16 and 17 year olds are as informed and engaged in political issues as older voters. It is time that they are empowered to put that knowledge to good use at the polls, and make voting a habit in their formative years. The testimony from young and old proved that this truly is a “second look” issue. While often triggering skepticism at first glance, a second look confirms that 16 and 17 year old voting is a very practical, and frankly, common sense policy.</p>
<div class="captionImage left" style="width: 250px;"><img class="left" title="" src="http://www.fairvote.org/assets/Uploads/_resampled/ResizedImage250186-IMG-1790.JPG" alt="IMG 1790" width="250" height="186"><p class="caption left">Supporters of lowering the voting age gathered before the Hyattsville City Council voted on the measure.</p>
</div>
<p dir="ltr">Perhaps the most important messages of support came from those who will benefit directly—Hyattsville’s 16 and 17 year old residents. During the hearing, Hyattsville teenager <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9_JrXgwhZ0" target="_blank">Jocelyn Nolasco stated</a>, “I know our students are ready, and will be honored to take this opportunity.” Several other teens spoke to the council as well, explaining why they were ready for this enhanced level of civic participation. Local teen<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pv5sYANI31E"> Juwan Blocker reasoned</a>, "You can get a job permit and actually start working. You can get a driver's permit and start driving. In the court of law, if you're a 16 year old...you can be treated to the fullest extent of the law as an adult. If we're put in adult positions, we should be able to vote." </p>
<p dir="ltr">The discussion that took place in Hyattsville was vibrant, energetic, and was an excellent display of local democracy in action—something that is becoming increasingly rare as national issues and partisan politics dominate the airwaves. The public hearing on lowering the voting age was a reminder of what healthy civic participation looks like, and how it can begin to transform the civic culture in a community. Residents and decisionmakers alike discussed important questions about their local democracy. What does it mean to have a right to vote? Are we doing everything we can to honor that right? How can we create a more engaged electorate? While 16 and 17 year old residents directly benefited, the entire community made leaps and bounds in achieving a healthier democracy.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Generating conversations (and outcomes) like this are what FairVote’s Promote Our Vote project is all about. In the spirit of establishing a constitutional right to vote, it’s time for localities to follow Hyattsville’s lead and generate a conversation about lowering the voting age, and more broadly, about civic engagement. Emmett Jordan, Mayor of Greenbelt, MD and president of the county's municipal association, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/hyattsville-council-considering-allowing-16-year-olds-right-to-vote-in-city-elections/2014/12/13/f3aecdde-8171-11e4-8882-03cf08410beb_story.html">told the Washington Post</a> a few weeks ago that the voting age “debate has caught the attention of 26 other municipalities in Prince George’s [County] and could spread.” It seems Takoma Park, and now Hyattsville, have sparked a conversation that is just beginning to take off.</p>
<p dir="ltr">If you wish to bring this, or other pro-suffrage ideas to your city council, visit <a href="http://promoteourvote.com">PromoteOurVote.com</a> or email info@fairvote.org. </p>
<p> </p>Tue, 06 Jan 2015 14:39:55 -0500http://www.fairvote.org/research-and-analysis/blog/hyattsville-extends-voting-rights-to-16-and-17-year-olds/FairVote Submits Comment Supporting Petition for More Inclusive Candidate Debateshttp://www.fairvote.org/research-and-analysis/blog/more-inclusive-debates-/
<p><strong>UPDATE</strong>: <em>Level the Playing Field has <a href="http://www.shapiroarato.com/shapiro-arato-isserles-petitions-open-presidential-debates-independent-candidate/" target="_blank">posted more information</a>, including letters in support of its petition from the Campaign Legal Center and others.</em></p>
<p>Free and open debate is necessary for a successful democracy. Yet, for the past twenty-two years, the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), the organization charged with administering the presidential and vice presidential debates, has not permitted a single independent or third party candidate to participate in those debates. Since 2000, the CPD has required candidates to have the support of at least 15 percent of the public in five national polls to participate in the debates. Due to differences in name recognition and media attention, meeting this threshold would require minor party candidates to spend almost ten times as much money as major party candidates. As a result, no independent and third party candidates have been able to participate in the debates since Ross Perot’s self-funded candidacy.</p>
<p>Excluding independent and third party candidates from the debates results in more polarized campaigning and reduces substantive discussion to the major parties’ talking points. On the other hand, including minor party candidates has been shown to broaden debate topics, increase voter education on major issues, and increase voter turnout in the general election. Clearly, giving independent and third party candidates an alternative means of qualifying for inclusion would be hugely beneficial. For these reasons, FairVote has submitted <a title="FV Comment to FEC" href="http://www.fairvote.org/[file_link,id=19581]" target="_blank">comments</a> to the Federal Election Commission in support of a <a href="http://sers.fec.gov/fosers/showpdf.htm?docid=306278" target="_blank">petition from Level the Playing Field</a>, a nonprofit organization advocating for open debates. </p>
<p>Level the Playing Field’s petition asks the FEC, which has the ability to dictate candidate selection criteria to the CPD, to revise its current regulations to provide an additional means to earn a spot in the presidential and vice-presidential debates using signature gathering. Level the Playing Field’s signature method allows the independent or third party candidate that gathers the most signatures to participate in the debates, provided such candidate is on the ballot in states with more than 270 total Electoral College votes. Thus, one candidate could participate in the debates without having to raise the unprecedented levels of funding required to surpass the CPD’s polling threshold and be certain they had earned that right in the spring, giving them plenty of time to build support for their fall campaign.</p>
<p>FairVote strongly supports Level the Playing Field’s proposed signature method and believes it provides an important alternative avenue for minor party participation in the presidential elections. In our letter backing the method, we address concerns people might have about this approach, including being able to validate signatures and to avoid fringe candidates from abusing this alternative qualification method.</p>
<p>In addition, requiring a lower polling threshold would be both fairer and more in line with other FEC regulations and international candidate selection standards. In an effort made prior to the 2000 elections, the <a href="http://fair.org/article/the-appleseed-citizens-task-force-on-fair-debates/" target="_blank">Appleseed Citizens’ Task Force</a>, a group comprised of prominent scholars and civic leaders, advocated for the adoption of a five percent polling threshold. A five percent threshold is much more easily obtainable, is equal to the level of support required to receive public funding under the Presidential Election Campaign Act, and is on par with the polling thresholds required by other modern nations such as <a href="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/mediapolicyproject/2014/10/15/we-need-to-look-at-other-parliamentary-democracies-for-ideas-about-how-to-run-televised-debates/" target="_blank">Canada and Germany</a>.</p>
<p>But such a change is no substitute for Level the Playing Field's proposal. Opinion polling has clearly demonstrated that American voters support the inclusion of independent and minor party candidates in the debates, with the proportion of Americans favoring the inclusion of minor party candidates <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/157427/americans-split-need-third-party.aspx/" target="_blank">remaining strong</a> since the CPD first adopted the 15% threshold. Including independent and minor party candidates has also been directly linked to increased voter turnout in the general election. With a steadily rising share of American registering to vote as unaffiliated with a major party, it’s time for the FEC to amend its regulations to provide an alternative method for including candidates in the presidential and vice presidential debates.</p>Tue, 16 Dec 2014 10:30:35 -0500http://www.fairvote.org/research-and-analysis/blog/more-inclusive-debates-/Party in Major Virginia County Uses Instant Runoff Voting – and Voters Like Ithttp://www.fairvote.org/research-and-analysis/blog/party-in-major-virginia-county-uses-instant-runoff-voting-and-voters-like-it/
<p><em>Interested in this topic? <a href="http://org.salsalabs.com/o/2495/p/salsa/web/common/public/signup?signup_page_KEY=5995" target="_blank">Sign up</a> to receive our newsletter and other updates on elections and electoral reform.</em></p>
<hr><p>This year, Virginia’s Arlington County Democratic Committee (ACDC) successfully implemented ranked choice voting (which they refer to as “instant runoff voting”), to select nominees for three special elections.</p>
<p>The ACDC decided to make the switch for <a href="http://bluevirginia.us/diary/10973/instantrunoff-voting-and-why-it-should-be-a-thing">two primary reasons</a> (pun intended) - to ensure the nomination of a consensus winner and to encourage positive campaigning. Leaders in the ACDC have expressed their satisfaction with instant runoff voting and – according to an exit poll conducted by FairVote this May – voters liked it too. All three primary contests had strong turnout with thousands of voters participating, and one contest served to nominate a candidate for state legislature who now is serving in the Virginia Assembly.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.fairvote.org/reforms/instant-runoff-voting/">Instant runoff voting</a> (IRV) is a proven system used by numerous cities, political parties, organizations and universities across the country, and the globe, to conduct elections. Instead of selecting just one candidate, voters are able to rank candidates in order of preference. Then those rankings are used to elect candidates who build the broadest base of support by combining strong first choice support with the ability to earn backup support (second, third, and so on) support as well. Recommended by <a href="http://www.fairvote.org/reforms/instant-runoff-voting/where-instant-runoff-is-used/roberts-rules-of-order/">Robert’s Rules of Order</a> for elections where repeated voting is not feasible and <a href="http://www.fairvote.org/reforms/instant-runoff-voting/where-instant-runoff-is-used/organizations-and-corporations-using-ranked-choice-voting/">widely used for non-governmental elections</a>, IRV is particularly well-suited for reflecting group consensus. </p>
<p>Like many nomination contests in Virginia, Arlington Democrats do not have a taxpayer-financed primary. Instead, the party runs its own contest. Some parties will nominate candidates at a convention, but that can limit participation to those able to spend hours on a nomination. More frequently, parties are using what is called “firehouse primaries” – that is, privately administered nomination contests.</p>
<p>When a party nominates candidates, it is valuable to ensure that the candidate advancing to the general election accurately represents the party. The selection of a nominee should serve to unify the party behind its candidate rather than cause internal animosity. Without IRV or repeated voting, primary elections with more than two candidates can result in a fractured field and winners advancing to the general election with a weak mandate from the party. </p>
<p>In addition to weak mandates, non-IRV elections create a zero sum game: in order to win, one must take votes from opponents. In these elections, candidates benefit from negative campaigning. As<a href="http://bluevirginia.us/diary/10973/instantrunoff-voting-and-why-it-should-be-a-thing"> Dave Leichtman</a>, the DPVA Vice-chair for Tech and Communications said, “One of the most destructive aspects of a primary campaign can often be the destructive pitting of mostly-like-minded individuals against each other.” While negative campaigning can be effective, in the end it can produce weak winners and a divided party.</p>
<p>The ACDC recognized IRV’s ability to provide candidates incentive to reach out beyond their base, asking for second and third choices. ACDC Chairman <a href="http://www.insidenova.com/news/arlington/sullivan-emerges-winner-in-th-district-democratic-caucus/article_6135aebc-05bd-11e4-ae73-001a4bcf887a.html">Kip Malinosky said</a> the ACDC switched to IRV because “we want to encourage learning about other candidates. It helps empower Democratic voters and it encourages positive campaigns.” When candidates are interacting with the supporters of other candidates for second and third choices, they benefit from finding common ground with potential voters rather than alienating them with divisive tactics. This creates winners who are in touch with the electorate and advance to general elections with a strong mandate from the party.</p>
<p>In May of this year, the ACDC allowed FairVote to observe their unassembled caucus to endorse a candidate to fill a vacancy on the Arlington County School Board, with three candidates seeking the endorsement. Over ten hours of voting, <img class="right" title="" src="http://www.fairvote.org/assets/Uploads/_resampled/ResizedImage250197-Arlington-2.jpg" alt="Arlington 2" width="250" height="197">3,723 Arlington Democrats participated in the unassembled caucus. Barbara Kanninen won the contest in the second round <br>of counting. Kanninen came in ahead of the other candidates initially but did not have a majority. When last place candidate Greg Greenly was eliminated, Kanninen received enough second choice support to secure the nomination.</p>
<p>FairVote conducted an exit survey of participants to gauge how voters understood and perceived the use of IRV in this contest. FairVote staff and volunteers were extremely impressed with the level of engagement and excitement from participants in the caucus and were able to speak to over 1,000 voters as they were leaving the polls. Here are some highlights from our findings:</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Voters Understanding of IRV</p>
<ul><li>85% of respondents found ranking candidates easy and 11% of respondent said that ranking was neither easy nor difficult.</li>
<li>70% of respondents said that they understood IRV very well, 23% of respondents said they understood IRV somewhat well.</li>
<li>88% of respondents found the instructions on the ballot very easy to understand.</li>
<li>88% of respondents said that they ranked at least 2 candidates on their ballot.</li>
<li>97% of the voters who participated in the caucus had their vote continue into the final round out counting.</li>
</ul><p> </p>
<p>Perceptions of IRV</p>
<ul><li>49% of respondents said that there was less criticism in this race, compared to only 2% that thought there was more criticism.</li>
<li>26% of respondents said that they were more inclined to vote for their most preferred candidate as opposed to 3% who said they were less likely to vote for their favorite candidate.</li>
<li>60% of respondents support the ACDC using IRV for nominations, 32% of respondents had no opinion.</li>
<li>73% of respondents would favor using IRV for state and congressional primaries.</li>
</ul><p> </p>
<p>These results show that voters overwhelmingly understand and engage with IRV. Voters see the value of building consensus and a majority of respondents see the value of continued, even expanded, use of the system. Of all of the participants in the caucus 97% of ballots counted for a candidate in the final round of counting. To put it simply – the voters got it, and they liked it.</p>
<p>Barbara Kanninen went on to win the special election and will begin her four-year term on the Arlington County School Board in January of 2015. Other uses of IRV included a firehouse primary in February to nominate a candidate for the county’s board of supervisors and a July firehouse primary – done in coordination with Fairfax County Democrats – to nominate a candidate for a special election for the House of Delegates. In this contest seven candidates ran, with Rip Sullivan earning a strong majority vote.</p>
<p>A combination of factors – large turnout of informed voters, candidates focusing on issues and uniting after a close contest, and a strong winner heading into the general election – help explain why Arlington Democrats seem so pleased with IRV and why many other local parties have moved to adopt it, including <a href="http://www.fairvote.org/e-newsletter-january-28-201#rtv">Republicans in Utah</a>. We recommend that other state and local parties take notice, especially when they administer their own elections and can quickly implement this time-tested, effective, and common-sense way of voting.</p>
<p>Take a look at <a href="http://www.fairvote.org/[file_link,id=19572]" target="_blank">our flyer</a> about instant runoff voting in Arlington.</p>Fri, 05 Dec 2014 10:57:52 -0500http://www.fairvote.org/research-and-analysis/blog/party-in-major-virginia-county-uses-instant-runoff-voting-and-voters-like-it/Lower Presidential Election Turnout in Safe Republican States (Part II)http://www.fairvote.org/research-and-analysis/blog/lower-presidential-election-turnout-in-safe-republican-states-part-ii/
<p><span><em>Interested in this topic? <a href="http://org.salsalabs.com/o/2495/p/salsa/web/common/public/signup?signup_page_KEY=5995" target="_blank">Sign up</a> to receive our newsletter and other updates on elections and electoral reform.<br></em></span></p>
<hr><p>A state’s status as a “swing state” or a “safe state” during presidential elections can greatly affect its voter turnout over time. FairVote hypothesizes that states’ status as “safe states” depresses voter turnout. Under the current Electoral College rules, in which most states award all of their electoral votes to the statewide winner, voters often feel that their votes have little effect on the outcome of the election, and are therefore less inclined to vote.</p>
<p>Three years ago, FairVote <a href="http://www.fairvote.org/research-and-analysis/blog/lower-presidential-election-turnout-in-safe-republican-states/">investigated this phenomenon</a> by looking at thirteen states that have given their electoral votes to Republican candidates in every presidential election since 1980: Alabama, Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming. These 13 states may be considered the safest Republican states. To study the effect that “safe state” status has on voter turnout, FairVote compared the combined turnout in these 13 safe Republican states to the turnout in the remaining states in each presidential election since 1988. We now update that investigation using data from the 2012 presidential election.</p>
<p><img class="center" title="" src="http://www.fairvote.org/assets/Uploads/_resampled/ResizedImage550323-TurnoutInSafeRStatesBlog-Image1-20141204-CED.JPG" alt="TurnoutInSafeRStatesBlog Image1 20141204 CED" width="550" height="323"></p>
<p>The 2012 presidential election shows a continuation of the trend that FairVote noted in our first assessment in 2011. Turnout in the 13 safe Republican states studied was lower than turnout in the remaining states in every presidential election since 1988. More significantly, the turnout differential between the 13 safest Republican states and the remaining states is growing. In 1988, the turnout differential was 2.56%. It has increased in every presidential election since 1988, and in 2012, it was 6.79%. In short, the longer a state is a Republican safe state, the lower the state’s voter turnout is compared to other states.</p>
<p><img class="center" title="" src="http://www.fairvote.org/assets/Uploads/_resampled/ResizedImage550325-TurnoutInSafeRStatesBlog-Image2-20141204-CED.JPG" alt="TurnoutInSafeRStatesBlog Image2 20141204 CED" width="550" height="325"></p>
<p>As long as the winner-take-all rule is in place, candidates will have incentive to focus on a small selection of swing states and to ignore states that consistently give their electoral votes to a certain political party’s candidate. Voters in the latter states, finding themselves ignored and without a means to impact the election, will be less and less inclined to turnout.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><em>Claire Daviss is a Democracy Fellow at FairVote. Follow her on Twitter <a href="https://twitter.com/ClaireDaviss_FV">@ClaireDaviss_FV</a>.</em></p>Thu, 04 Dec 2014 14:59:54 -0500http://www.fairvote.org/research-and-analysis/blog/lower-presidential-election-turnout-in-safe-republican-states-part-ii/Michigan Electoral College "Reform" and the National Popular Votehttp://www.fairvote.org/research-and-analysis/blog/michigan-electoral-college-reform-and-the-national-popular-vote/
<p><span><em>Interested in this topic? <a href="http://org.salsalabs.com/o/2495/p/salsa/web/common/public/signup?signup_page_KEY=5995" target="_blank">Sign up</a> to receive our newsletter and other updates on elections and electoral reform.<br></em></span></p>
<hr><p> </p>
<p><img class="center" title="" src="http://www.fairvote.org/assets/Uploads/_resampled/ResizedImage550412-VotingImage2.jpg" alt="Flickr Creative Commons" width="550" height="412"></p>
<p>Today the Michigan Committee on Elections and Ethics met for the second time to hear testimony on a bill that would change the way that Michigan distributes its electoral votes. HB 5974, submitted by Rep. Pete Lund, would change Michigan’s system of distributing electoral votes from a winner-take-all system to new formula designed to reward political activity by the two leading candidates – and in so doing as stirred a hornets’ nest of opposition.</p>
<p>FairVote provided <a href="http://www.fairvote.org/[file_link,id=19565]" target="_blank">written testimony</a> for the hearing today, bringing new analysis to this important discussion. We raise several key points in assessing Michigan HB 5974.</p>
<p>FairVote agrees with Rep. Lund on the fact that the current winner-take-all system, used in Michigan and 47 other states, is problematic. As detailed in a <a href="http://www.fairvote.org/[file_link,id=19112]" target="_blank">FairVote-authored article</a> in Presidential Studies Quarterly last year, more than two-thirds of states now are sure to be completely ignored by the presidential campaigns after the conventions. Michigan voters received at least some attention in 2008 and 2012, but a good bit less than warranted by their share of the national electorate. It’s been 26 years since a Republican presidential nominee last carried Michigan. Another easy win for Democrats in 2016 will likely seal Michigan’s status as a spectator state until the system is reformed.</p>
<p>Although FairVote agrees that the current winner-take-all system is problematic, HB 5974 has problems as well. (You can read a full description of the bill’s methodology in <a href="http://www.fairvote.org/[file_link,id=19565]" target="_blank">our testimony </a>and at<a href="http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2013-2014/billintroduced/House/pdf/2014-HIB-5974.pdf" target="_blank"> this link</a>.) If Michigan alone passes legislation to change the way that it distributes its electoral votes, it will at most have four electoral votes in play and more likely only two. At least eight other states would have more electoral votes in play and be more attractive targets for campaigns. There are limited scenarios in which Michigan’s system would make a difference, but even those are problematic, as we detail here:</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">Despite this fact, there are scenarios where HB 5974 could make Michigan a “tipping point state” in 2016. For instance, if you sum the electoral votes in the 19 states that Democrats have won six straight times, Democrats start a close presidential election with a relatively strong base of 242 electoral votes. If you add Florida’s 29 electoral votes to that total, it grows to a winning majority of 271 electoral votes. If Democrats also won New Hampshire for the fourth straight time, they would have 275 electoral votes.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">But suppose HB 5974 were law and the Republican nominee were able to win 47.1% of the two-party vote in Michigan, under H.B. 5874 the Republican would win six electoral votes – and suddenly go from losing the presidency by 12 electoral votes to earning a 269-269 electoral vote tie and having the Republican-run House of Representatives pick the president. Although the odds of this scenario or a similar scenario involving more states are low, they are plausible if the 2016 presidential election were nationally very close.</p>
<p>We also<a href="http://www.fairvote.org/[file_link,id=19564]" target="_blank"> created a spreadsheet</a> to analyze the impact of all states using the HB 5974 system. We simulated the 2012 results if the bill had been used in every state and District of Columbia. Nearly half of states would not have a single electoral vote in play, including 14 of the 15 smallest population states.</p>
<p>Moreover, the bill results in a lack of symmetry in comparable popular vote outcomes. For example, Obama’s 52% to 48% win in the 2012 two-party vote would have translated into an electoral vote win of 287 to 251. If Romney had won 52% to 48%, he would have secured a far larger winning electoral vote margin of 315 to 223. </p>
<p>When FairVote simulated a national popular vote tie, Romney would have won the electoral vote by 271 to 267, suggesting that this system would have likely allowed Romney to win even if he had lost the popular vote by a small margin. The formula in HB 5974 therefore has the potential to produce a “wrong way winner” in presidential elections.</p>
<p>We conclude our testimony by explaining how the best proposal for Michigan – and indeed all states -- is the <a href="http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/" target="_blank">National Popular Vote interstate compact</a> that has been adopted by 10 states and the District of Columbia. Designed to guarantee election of the candidate who wins the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC, the National Popular Vote avoids the problems present in the current winner-take-all system and in the proposed formula in Michigan HB 5974. It ensures that every vote in every state matters equally and that all states get the attention they deserve.</p>Tue, 02 Dec 2014 15:18:01 -0500http://www.fairvote.org/research-and-analysis/blog/michigan-electoral-college-reform-and-the-national-popular-vote/The Most Obvious Option: Ranked Choice Voting for Party Leadership Elections in the English-Speaking Worldhttp://www.fairvote.org/research-and-analysis/blog/the-most-obvious-option-ranked-choice-voting/
<p><span style="color: #000000;"><em>Interested in this topic? <a href="http://org.salsalabs.com/o/2495/p/salsa/web/common/public/signup?signup_page_KEY=5995" target="_blank">Sign up</a> to receive our newsletter and other updates on elections and electoral reform.<br></em></span></p>
<hr><p> </p>
<p><span style="color: #000000;">As part of the movement seeking greater internal party democracy, openness and accountability that has taken hold in much of the English-speaking world, the </span><a href="http://campaign.labour.org.nz/"><span style="color: #000000;">New Zealand Labour Party</span></a> <span style="color: #000000;">has joined major political parties in Canada, Scotland, and the United Kingdom in allowing its members to pick the party’s leadership directly. As is the norm in these democracies, the New Zealand Labour Party will use </span><a href="http://www.fairvote.org/reforms/instant-runoff-voting/"><span style="color: #000000;">ranked choice voting</span></a> <span style="color: #000000;">(RCV) to count the ballots currently being cast by its newly enfranchised party members. Also this month, Scotland’s two largest parties are picking key leaders using RCV.</span></p>
<p><span style="color: #000000;">Ranked choice voting (also known as “instant runoff voting”, the “alternative vote” and “preferential voting”) is a well-known voting system, used to elect all Australian parliaments, the president of Ireland, the mayors of London (UK) and Wellington (New Zealand) and the mayors of American cities including Minneapolis, Oakland, St. Paul and San Francisco. While it is well-known for governmental elections, it is used far more commonly outside of government. Tied to the recommendations of </span><a href="http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=1797"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Robert’s Rules of Order</span></a><span style="color: #000000;">, RCV is used to choose student representatives in close to 60 </span><a href="http://www.fairvote.org/reforms/instant-runoff-voting/where-instant-runoff-is-used/colleges-and-universities-using-ranked-choice-voting/"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">American colleges and universities</span></a><span style="color: #000000;">, the Best Picture Oscar at the Academy Awards, and the leadership of</span> <a href="http://www.fairvote.org/reforms/instant-runoff-voting/where-instant-runoff-is-used/organizations-and-corporations-using-ranked-choice-voting/"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">dozens of non-governmental organizations</span></a>. <span style="color: #000000;">These elections are often hotly contested and involve thousands of voters. </span></p>
<p><img class="leftAlone" title="" src="http://www.fairvote.org/assets/Uploads/_resampled/ResizedImage600112-Labour-Leader-Contenders.JPG" alt="Labour Leader Contenders" width="600" height="112"><em>The four 2014 New Zealand Labour Party leadership candidates (image courtesy of the New Zealand Labour Party).</em></p>
<p><span style="color: #000000;">In contrast to the </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Labour_Party_leadership_election,_2011"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">handful of people</span></a> <span style="color: #000000;">who chose the party’s leader in 2011, thousands of New Zealand Labour Party members are currently </span><a href="http://campaign.labour.org.nz/leadership-election-info"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">ranking the four leadership candidates on the ballot</span></a>. <span style="color: #000000;">The system, there called “preferential voting”, is playing a prominent role in the campaign. It is allowing greater voter choice by enabling more than two candidates join the race. When the fourth candidate </span>(<a href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&amp;objectid=11341269"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">interim party leader David Parker)</span></a> <span style="color: #000000;">entered the contest just before nominations closed, no one feared he would play the role of “spoiler” candidate, as that problem does not exist under RCV. RCV has also encouraged leadership candidates to develop broad appeal in order to</span> <a href="http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/256727/four-way-race-for-labour-leadership"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">seek voters’ second and third preferences</span></a>.</p>
<p><span style="color: #000000;">New Zealand has a history of democratic trailblazing. New Zealand was the first country to </span><a href="http://journals.cambridge.org.mutex.gmu.edu/action/displayFulltext?type=1&amp;fid=5106888&amp;jid=JPS&amp;volumeId=39&amp;issueId=02&amp;aid=5106880&amp;bodyId=&amp;membershipNumber=&amp;societyETOCSession="><span style="text-decoration: underline;">grant women</span></a> <span style="color: #000000;">the right to vote. It granted voting rights to the nation’s indigenous Maori people early in its history. And, in more recent decades, it adopted a highly representative and democratic voting system</span>, <a href="http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=2046"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">mixed-member proportional representation</span></a><span style="color: #000000;">, for its parliament. Yet, in recent years, the health of New Zealand’s democracy has faltered, at least in some areas. Turnout fell to historic lows in 2011, when less than 75% of registered voters cast their ballot. Membership and participation in political parties lessened too. For the Labour Party this decline has been especially troublesome. It is facing flagging memberships, donations and polling numbers. </span></p>
<p><span style="color: #000000;">It was as part of the New Zealand Labour Party’s program of internal democratic reform, aimed at reinvigorating and bolstering its membership and Election Day performance, that the party adopted RCV. The move is hot on the heels of the 2013 leadership election, in which party members contributed, for the first time ever, to the selection of their party’s leader (David Cunliffe). In the past, only elected legislators in the party caucus chose the party leader, an undemocratic phenomenon endemic in Australasia.</span></p>
<p><span style="color: #000000;">In similar projects of democratic improvement and membership expansion, Canadian, British and Scottish political parties have chosen RCV for their leadership elections. In 2013, the Canadian </span><a href="http://www.liberal.ca/"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Liberal Party</span></a> <span style="color: #000000;">chose its leader, </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Party_of_Canada_leadership_election,_2013"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">from a field of six candidates</span></a><span style="color: #000000;">, by vote of party members for the first time. Of all the electoral systems available, the party chose RCV to count the more than 100,000 votes cast. For the party, the system had two advantages: widened participation and greater legitimacy for the elected party leader. Since 1919, between 2000 and 6000 convention delegates had chosen the party leader by majority. The need for a majority in a (usually) multi-candidate race required multiple rounds of voting. These multiple rounds were often divisive and exacerbated existing fault-lines within the party. </span></p>
<p><span style="color: #000000;">Also in Canada, the New Democratic Party of Canada — for the first time in 2012 — combined RCV (for online and mail voting) with the more traditional majority voting (for members who attended the convention in Toronto) when </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democratic_Party_leadership_election,_2012"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">selecting their leader</span></a> <span style="color: #000000;">from a field of seven nominated candidates. In all, a total of 165,000 votes were cast. The move to RCV followed the introduction of “</span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_member,_one_vote"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">one member one vote</span></a><span style="color: #000000;">” in 2003, which, like the use of RCV, was intended to make the party more democratic. </span></p>
<p><span style="color: #000000;">In 2010, the </span><a href="http://www2.labour.org.uk/votes-by-round"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">British Labour Party</span></a> <span style="color: #000000;">used RCV in its Electoral College (in which the votes of individual party members, members of labor unions and the parliamentary caucus are weighted differently) to elect its leader in a close contest between two brothers, winner Ed Miliband and David Miliband. Neither Ed nor David Miliband received a majority of the 211,000 first choice rankings, but after the distribution of second and third choices, Ed Miliband overtook David to emerge the winner. The party used RCV in 2007 to select its Deputy Leader, Harriet Harman, who, in a </span><a href="http://www.fairvote.org/news/uk-labour-elects-deputy-leader-with-irv/"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">closely contested election</span></a><span style="color: #000000;">, beat out her five opponents.</span></p>
<p><img class="center" title="" src="http://www.fairvote.org/assets/Uploads/_resampled/ResizedImage399206-David-Miliband-Ed-Miliband.jpg" alt="David Miliband Ed Miliband" width="399" height="206"><em>Ed (right) and Dave Miliband at the 2010 UK Labour Party Leadership Convention.</em></p>
<p><span style="color: #000000;">In Scotland, the Labour, Conservative and Scottish National parties all use RCV to select their leadership. The Labour Party is likely to have </span><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/28/sarah-boyack-confirms-candidacy-scottish-labour-leadership"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">three candidates running</span></a> <span style="color: #000000;">in its upcoming election for leader, with RCV likely to play a key role. In 2008, the party’s leadership elections were provoked by the then-leader’s dubious dealings with campaign donations. The use of RCV ensured the leader-elect, Iain Gray, garnered a majority of votes by appealing to the third candidate’s supporters for their second preferences. In this way, the party emerged stronger and more united than it might have under the multiple rounds majority system. </span></p>
<p><span style="color: #000000;">This month, the </span><a href="http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2014/oct/close-nominations-snp-leadership-elections"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Scottish National Party</span></a> <span style="color: #000000;">would have used RCV to select its new leader in the aftermath of the failure of the Scottish independence referendum, if more than one candidate had been nominated for the top job. However, </span><a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29975956"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">three nominees will fight it out</span></a> <span style="color: #000000;">for the position of deputy-leader, with the winner determined by the use of RCV. In 2011, the Scottish Conservative Party </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Conservative_Party_leadership_election,_2011"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">chose its party leader</span></a><span style="color: #000000;">, Ruth Davidson, using RCV. Davidson, a moderate, won 55% of the vote after second choices were taken into account in a competitive election with four candidates – two front runners and two minor candidates. </span></p>
<p><span style="color: #000000;">All of these parties use RCV to elect their leaders because it works – that is, it is both simple and efficacious for voters, who merely </span><a href="http://www.fairvote.org/reforms/instant-runoff-voting/what-is-irv/"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">rank the candidates</span></a> <span style="color: #000000;">in the order they prefer – and because there are few incentives for candidates to game the system. Additionally, RCV avoids divisive and confusing multiple rounds of voting, while at the same time ensuring that the candidate who is the most preferred by the party is elected. The system offers incentives for candidates to seek broad support, including second and third choices, helping ensure that the winning candidate is able to bring the party together.</span></p>
<p><span style="color: #000000;">In the United States, several state and local arms of both major parties, and some minor parties, already use RCV to fill certain offices. For example, the Arlington, Virginia, Democratic Party used RCV in three </span><a href="http://www.waywordradio.org/firehouse_primary_8/"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">firehouse primaries</span></a> <span style="color: #000000;">this year. Similarly, the Utah Republican Party used RCV for a number of key votes at its conventions. It also uses RCV to select candidates to fill state legislative vacancies. RCV seems an obvious choice for voters in party elections, especially those, like the Republican Iowa Caucuses, where the field is often fractured and the outcomes equivocal.</span></p>Wed, 12 Nov 2014 17:34:05 -0500http://www.fairvote.org/research-and-analysis/blog/the-most-obvious-option-ranked-choice-voting/A Guide to Good Policy for States Considering Electoral College Reformshttp://www.fairvote.org/research-and-analysis/blog/a-guide-to-good-policy-for-states-considering-electoral-college-reforms/
<p><em>Interested in this topic? <a href="http://org.salsalabs.com/o/2495/p/salsa/web/common/public/signup?signup_page_KEY=5995" target="_blank">Sign up</a> to receive our newsletter and other updates on elections and electoral reform.</em></p>
<hr><p><img class="center" title="Source: Pete Souza, Wikimedia Commons." src="http://www.fairvote.org/assets/Uploads/_resampled/ResizedImage600400-Barack-Obama-votes-in-the-2012-election.jpg" alt="Barack Obama votes in the 2012 election." width="600" height="400"></p>
<p>A week after the 2014 midterm elections, most of our attention is focused on what the newly elected leaders will bring. Bigger storms may be brewing. As I wrote in <a href="http://www.rollcall.com/news/december_surprise_states_may_change_the_electoral_college_system_before-237706-1.html" target="_hplink">Roll Call</a> on November 7th, and as reported in such outlets as the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/11/10/wonkbook-how-a-constitutional-quirk-could-guarantee-a-gop-win-in-2016/" target="_hplink">Washington Post</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/gop-may-revive-plan-rig-electoral-college" target="_hplink">MSNBC</a> and <a href="http://www.vox.com/2014/11/8/7174945/electoral-college-rigging" target="_hplink">Vox</a>, rumor has it that state legislators in Pennsylvania and Michigan may consider changes to the way their states allocate electoral votes in presidential elections during their final few months of the 2013-14 legislative session.</p>
<p>While much of the coverage focuses on the partisan consequences of the proposal, I would like to focus on the policies in themselves. After all, state legislators are trying to fix a problem in the Electoral College that <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/159881/americans-call-term-limits-end-electoral-college.aspx" target="_hplink">the majority of Americans, both Democrats and Republicans, recognize</a>. Here is a review of the recent debate in these states and policy options to reform the Electoral College.</p>
<p>The current Electoral College system is failing to reflect American voters nationwide. Candidates focus their campaign attention on a small handful of swing states, and ignore voters in states that lean solidly blue or red. Plus, the winner-take-all system for distributing electoral votes fails to represent the large portions of voters that support the losing candidate in their state - such as the Republicans who have consistently earned more than 40% of the vote in Michigan and Pennsylvania, but haven not won a single electoral vote there since 1988. Americans want an electoral system that gives a voice to more voters, regardless of where those voters live. The question that legislators in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and beyond have tried to answer, is: what is the best way to resolve these problems?</p>
<p>State legislators are currently considering several policy options. One policy option is to distribute electoral votes roughly proportionally to the candidates' respective shares of the statewide popular vote. In February 2013, Sen. Dominic Pileggi of Pennsylvania <a href="http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&amp;sessYr=2013&amp;sessInd=0&amp;billBody=S&amp;billTyp=B&amp;billNbr=0538&amp;pn=0502" target="_hplink">introduced legislation</a> along these lines. Under Pileggi's plan, each candidate would win electoral votes based on her proportion of the statewide popular vote, and the candidate that wins the most votes statewide would win both Senatorial electoral votes. <a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/electoral-college-rigging-scheme-could-spill-into-pa-governor-race" target="_hplink">Political commentators have suggested</a> that Pileggi's bill could resurface suddenly in the coming months.</p>
<p>Another policy option is to distribute electoral votes by congressional district. In that case, a candidate would win an electoral vote for each congressional district she wins, and the winner of the statewide popular vote would win the two remaining Senatorial electoral votes. Political commentators have suggested that <a href="http://archive.freep.com/article/20140112/COL04/301120077/electoral-college-Michigan-Rick-Snyder-Barack-Obama-Mittt-Romney-popular-vote" target="_hplink">term-limited Republican legislators in Michigan</a> may pass legislation at the end of the session to distribute electoral votes by congressional district. The idea may lack the support of key leaders, such as<a href="http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/index.ssf/2014/10/roads_term_limits_or_electoral.html" target="_hplink"> Senate Majority Leader Randy Richardville</a> and Governor Rick Snyder, but with the <a href="http://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/02/electoral_votes_michigan_presi.html" target="_hplink">passionate support</a> of the Republican base, <a href="http://archive.freep.com/article/20140112/COL04/301120077/electoral-college-Michigan-Rick-Snyder-Barack-Obama-Mittt-Romney-popular-vote" target="_hplink">you never know</a>.</p>
<p>Pennsylvania and Michigan are not alone. <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/12/how_the_republican_party_is_planning_to_marginalize_urban_voters_in_the.html" target="_hplink">Wisconsin, Virginia, and Ohio</a> have also weighed various reforms to their systems of distributing electoral votes, and <a href="http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/on-the-trail/the-gop-s-electoral-college-scheme-20121217" target="_hplink">Florida</a>may soon jump on the bandwagon. Clearly, people are frustrated, and the current system deserves reform.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, neither allocating electoral votes proportionally nor allocating electoral votes by congressional district is an optimal policy. FairVote researchers reviewed Pileggi's plan in a <a href="http://www.fairvote.org/research-reports/pennsylvania-s-proportional-electoral-vote-allocation-proposal-a-nationwide-analysis/" target="_hplink">report </a>released in 2013. They found that Pileggi's plan for Pennsylvania, if adopted nationwide, would increase the number of states considered "swing states" from ten to twenty-three, because more states would have at least one electoral vote that could go for either candidate. Still, <a href="http://www.fairvote.org/assets/Uploads/Fuzzy-Math-Report2011-Update.pdf" target="_hplink">very few of these states would have more than one electoral vote to swing</a>. Candidates would likely continue to target the states where they would have the opportunity to gain the most electoral votes. The most important states would be those with four electoral votes to swing, all nine of which are already swing states under the current system.</p>
<p>The congressional district system, being considered by Republican state legislators in Michigan, is also problematic. As FairVote's soon-to-be-updated report from 2011, "<a href="http://www.fairvote.org/research-reports/fuzzy-math-wrong-way-reforms-for-allocating-electoral-college-votes/" target="_hplink">Fuzzy Math: Wrong Way Reforms for Allocation Electoral College Votes</a>," demonstrates, the congressional district system suffers from sources of error, which would make it more likely that a candidate could be elected president without receiving the most votes nationwide. The system is susceptible to political gerrymandering, which skews the political partisanship of districts. It suffers from the continued use of winner-take-all rules to determine how the two Senatorial electoral votes would be allocated. And perhaps most importantly, it continues to be a winner-take-all system, just on a district level. FairVote's recently released <em><a href="http://www.fairvote.org/research-and-analysis/congressional-elections/fairvotes-projections-for-u-s-house-elections-in-2016/" target="_hplink">Monopoly Politics</a> </em>report reveals that three out of every four congressional districts is safe for one party. For residents living in districts that lean one way or another, their votes would continue not to matter.</p>
<p>We need not trade one bad Electoral College system for another bad Electoral College system. We need a plan that allows every vote in every state to matter equally. Using the<a href="http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/" target="_hplink"> national popular vote</a> to determine the president offers that solution.</p>
<p>States have the power to establish a national popular vote for president. Coming in the form of a binding agreement among states that enact it, the national popular vote plan is designed to guarantee that the president elect wins the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Ten states and District have approved the plan, with <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/national-popular-vote-new-york-state-climbs-aboard" target="_hplink">a total of 165 electoral votes</a>. Once passed in states with a majority of electoral votes (that is, at least 270), the agreement is activated for the next presidential election.</p>
<p>The national popular vote plan would increase the fairness of elections. All votes would have the potential to shape the outcome, and no voter would have unfair influence based on where she lives. Because candidates would have to appeal to voters nationwide, they would compete across the nation, not just in a few swing states.</p>
<p>The plan is just as easy to pass as the legislation proposed in Pennsylvania and Michigan. In fact, Pennsylvania and Michigan's support would give the national popular vote just over 200 electoral votes and create more momentum for other states to act, possibly by 2016.</p>
<p>We are not sure what is on the minds of Pennsylvania and Michigan legislators these days. Likely quite a bit. But if the changes to the Electoral College should cross their minds, we hope they will weigh their options fully and with a focus on the fairest proportion: one person, one vote.</p>
<p><em>A copy of this piece was published in the Huffington Post Blog <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-richie/weighing-policy-not-parti_b_6141808.html?utm_hp_ref=politics&amp;ir=Politics">online</a>, November 11th, 2014.</em></p>Wed, 12 Nov 2014 11:30:47 -0500http://www.fairvote.org/research-and-analysis/blog/a-guide-to-good-policy-for-states-considering-electoral-college-reforms/FairVote Files Amicus in New Jersey "Closed Primaries" Casehttp://www.fairvote.org/research-and-analysis/blog/fairvote-files-amicus-in-new-jersey-closed-primaries-case/
<p><img class="left" title="" src="http://www.fairvote.org/assets/Uploads/_resampled/ResizedImage300163-FVAmicus.jpg" alt="FVAmicus" width="300" height="163">Right now a federal court of appeals is considering the Constitutionality of New Jersey’s closed primary election system – and FairVote is weighing in. <a href="http://www.fairvote.org/assets/Balsam-FairVote-Amicus-Motion-and-Brief-AS-FILED.pdf">Click here</a> to read FairVote’s amicus curiae brief in Basalm v. Guadagno, and read the <a href="http://ivn.us/2014/11/11/fairvote-joins-fight-two-party-monopoly-elections/">coverage of our participation</a> on IVN.us.</p>
<p>In New Jersey, nearly half of all voters have chosen to exercise their First Amendment right to not affiliate with either of the two major political parties. Those voters are not allowed to vote on primary election day. New Jersey allows the Democratic and Republican Parties to put their nominees on the general election ballot, making their nomination process an integral part of the election. New Jersey further holds a publicly funded election – open to party members only – to choose those nominees.</p>
<p>In short, New Jersey’s public elections consist of two interconnected parts, but the first part excludes almost half of New Jersey voters from participation. This seems unfair to independent voters in New Jersey, and so a group of such voters has <a href="http://ivn.us/2014/03/05/lawsuit-filed-nj-federal-court-challenges-constitutionality-partisan-primary-elections/">sued in federal court</a>, claiming that New Jersey’s closed primaries violate their right to vote.</p>
<p>The United States is the only country where the government conducts nominating elections for private political parties. The role of primary elections in the United States is poorly understood. Indeed, the district court seems to have misunderstood the context in which U.S. primary elections occur by assuming that by attacking closed primaries the plaintiffs sought only to “pry open” the primary elections. To prevent a similar misunderstanding in the court of appeals, FairVote has filed a brief explaining the history of primary elections and the various options open to states.</p>
<p>States are not limited to either holding closed or open primaries. For the first hundred years of United States elections, not only were there no primary elections as we know them today, there were generally not even any ballots with names printed on them at all. Early in the nation’s history, voting might mean writing the names of candidates on paper and putting them in a box.</p>
<p>The system we use today is called “the Australian ballot.” That is, a secret ballot with the names of nominees preprinted on it that may not leave the polling place. The trouble is, if the government is going to print the names of nominees on every ballot, it must have some means of knowing who the nominees are. That gives rise to the issue of ballot access.</p>
<p>The typical method of ballot access in the U.S. is to provide officially recognized political parties an automatic spot on the ballot for their nominees and then to choose those nominees in publicly held primary elections. That is not the only option, however.</p>
<p>States could allow candidates to simply petition for access directly to the general election ballot without holding any primary election whatever. That is exactly what Louisiana does today, which is why the 2014 general election for senator in Louisiana this year was a race between four Democrats, three Republicans, and one Libertarian. Then, if no candidate receives a majority of votes in the general election, a runoff is held between the two candidates who received the most votes irrespective of political party. Louisiana’s qualified absentee voters participate in both the general election and runoff simultaneously by filling out a ranked ballot along with their general election ballot; in the runoff, the ranked ballot will count as a vote for whichever runoff candidate they ranked highest.</p>
<p>Even better, states like New Jersey could use no primary election and allow all voters to elect using <a href="http://www.fairvote.org/reforms/instant-runoff-voting/">ranked choice voting</a>. This practice is already used in <a href="http://www.fairvote.org/reforms/instant-runoff-voting/where-instant-runoff-is-used/">a number of U.S. cities</a> with <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-richie/key-facts-about-2014-ranked-choice-voting-elections-in-bay-area_b_6111420.html">great success</a>.</p>
<p>States could continue to hold primary elections in ways that fully incorporate independent voters in the process while also respecting the association rights of political parties. Indeed, FairVote’s <a href="http://www.fairvote.org/reforms/instant-runoff-voting/top-four-elections/">Top Four proposal</a> is a great example. Every candidate and every voter would be treated equally irrespective of political party in every stage of the election, and it would create an <a href="http://www.fairvote.org/research-and-analysis/blog/fixing-top-two-with-open-general-elections-the-colorado-innovation/">open and competitive primary and general election</a>.</p>
<p>Whatever the court decides, FairVote is proud to participate. If nothing else, the court should be fully informed of the context for primary elections in the United States. </p>Tue, 11 Nov 2014 17:30:25 -0500http://www.fairvote.org/research-and-analysis/blog/fairvote-files-amicus-in-new-jersey-closed-primaries-case/People of Color in American Elections, 2014: Advances and Setbackshttp://www.fairvote.org/research-and-analysis/blog/people-of-color-in-american-elections-2014-advances-and-setbacks/
<p><em>Interested in this topic? <a href="http://org.salsalabs.com/o/2495/p/salsa/web/common/public/signup?signup_page_KEY=5995" target="_blank">Sign up</a> to receive our newsletter and other updates on elections and electoral reform.</em></p>
<hr><p>This post-midterm election coverage has been dominated by rhetoric of change--from a Republican takeover of the House and Senate to history-making “firsts” like Utah’s Mia Love’s election as the first female African American Republican representative and Tim Scott's solidifying his seat as the first African American to be elected to the Senate in the South since Reconstruction. Next year, Congress will have 49 African Americans, with the increase of five since January 2013 the biggest increase in two decades.</p>
<p>After first taking office in 2013, Tim Scott and Cory Booker have brought diversity to the Senate as its only two African-American members (Scott was originally appointed by South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley to fill an open seat, and Booker was elected in a special election). But taking a broader view of all 535 seats in the new 114th Congress, only 46 members are African-American, 37 are Hispanic and Latino, 11 are Asian American, and two are Native American. The demographic makeup of the Senate echoes the problems of the current American democratic system: 94 of 100 Senators are white despite whites' making up just 64% of the nation's population.</p>
<p><img class="leftAlone" title="" src="http://www.fairvote.org/assets/Uploads/_resampled/ResizedImage600305-114th-United-States-Senate-Structure.2.png" alt="114th United States Senate Structure.2" width="600" height="305"></p>
<p>And looking below the federal level, representative government across the board fails to reflect the country’s diversity, as demonstrated by the fact that we will have no African American governors. While men and women of color have made <a style="font-size: 12px;" href="http://www.fairvoteblog.com/2014/11/wins-and-losses-for-people-of-color.html">advances this round of elections</a>, we cannot get wrapped up in the party streamers and forget the barriers that candidates in ethnic minority groups continue to face when running for office.</p>
<p>Next year there will only be two governors who are men of color--Asian-American/Pacific Islander David Ige of Hawaii and Latino Brian Sandoval of Nevada--and just two female governors of color--Susana Martinez of New Mexico and Nikki Haley of South Carolina. Only Ige was newly elected this year, with Sandoval, Martinez and Haley now in their final terms.</p>
<p>One particular governor’s race baffled the country in what could have been a history-making outcome: Anthony Brown lost his opportunity to become the first African-American governor in Maryland history and the third elected anywhere in the country since Reconstruction. Brown had multiple advantages in his favor. As a Democrat, he held a clear presumed advantage over Republican Larry Hogan in a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans more than<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/more-than-twice-as-many-democrats-as-republicans-vote-early-in-maryland/2014/10/31/b65120c2-6100-11e4-8b9e-2ccdac31a031_story.html"> </a><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/more-than-twice-as-many-democrats-as-republicans-vote-early-in-maryland/2014/10/31/b65120c2-6100-11e4-8b9e-2ccdac31a031_story.html">t</a><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/more-than-twice-as-many-democrats-as-republicans-vote-early-in-maryland/2014/10/31/b65120c2-6100-11e4-8b9e-2ccdac31a031_story.html">wo-to-one in party registration</a>; he had the edge in experience, having served as Lieutenant Governor for eight years prior to running compared to Hogan, a businessman who had not served in elected office; he spent more campaign cash, with an estimated <a href="http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/politics/campaign-2014/bs-md-governor-20141105-story.html#page=1">spending advantage of four-to-one</a>; Democrats won the other two statewide elections, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/sen-brian-frosh-of-montgomery-county-elected-attorney-general-of-maryland/2014/11/04/69bcbadc-5df9-11e4-91f7-5d89b5e8c251_story.html">both by more than 14 percentage points</a>; and he had endorsements and active support from a number of prominent Democratic figures, including President Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and Hillary Clinton. </p>
<p>Yet Brown won only 46% of the vote. While commentators attributed Brown’s loss to his weak platform and an unclear identity, the role of race in his loss remains a huge elephant in the room. Maryland remains a majority-white state, with 60% of the population identifying as Caucasian and 40% identifying as non-white in the 2013 Census. The three counties that Brown did best in are the counties with the largest African American population, but also had the lowest turnout in the state, leaving the race up to the predominantly white areas of Maryland. Because of statistics like this, racial minority candidates depend on white voters in order to gain a seat at the table. Kareem Crayton, an assistant Professor of Law and Political Science at the University of Southern California has <a href="http://www.jomc.unc.edu/sites/default/files/images/documents/redstates/whitevoters.pdf">noted in his research</a><a href="http://www.jomc.unc.edu/sites/default/files/images/documents/redstates/whitevoters.pdf"> </a> that, “successful black candidates have to convince white voters that they can represent the entire community. It is instructive that the black candidates who have been the most successful in winning white support have provided people plenty of information about themselves.”</p>
<p>As this research indicates, candidates of color are more likely to seem untrustworthy if their majority-white neighborhoods do not know enough information about who they are and what they stand for, whereas a white candidate may be given more slack in the same situation. This could have been an unspoken factor in Brown’s campaign: the entire election was criticized by media outlets as an election where <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/unlike-previous-midterm-election-years-no-dominant-theme-has-emerged-for-2014/2014/08/09/8775aca6-1f0a-11e4-ae54-0cfe1f974f8a_story.html">candidates rode on platforms without clear substance</a>, yet Brown’s lack of a platform may have affected his campaign more deeply due to his race. It’s disappointing that media outlets like the Washington Post have not touched on Brown’s race in post-election analysis about his defeat.</p>
<p>Utah's Mia Love made history as the first African-American Republican woman to win a seat in Congress, but it’s also true that she had lost in the same district in 2012 and this year only won by a slim 3 point margin in a district that Mitt Romney carried by 37 percentage points. <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/news/1793858-155/love-utah-race-black-racial-mia">Some reports have suggested </a>that Love may have toned down her African-American roots in a state where Brigham Young University pollsters found latent racial bias. </p>
<p>The first step in eliminating the racial bias embedded in elections is to begin to elect more people of color at all levels of government in order for people to rethink their notions of ethnicity and its impact on leadership. There are systemic changes we can make to the election process that may impact how many people of color are elected. One of those changes is switching to a ranked-choice voting system in multi-winner districts in which voters rank candidates by preference and like-minded voters win representation in proportion to their share of the vote. In the current winner-take-all system in the U.S., 50.1% of the population can control 100% of seats, many times leaving candidates that are part of a minority out of the running. In areas where neighborhoods are racially polarized, it allows white populations to be overrepresented because they vote more often than minority groups.</p>
<p>With multi-winner districts and a fair representation system, more voters can elect preferred candidates. Furthermore, voters in a ranked-choice voting system have been shown rank their candidates in a more balanced manner, as voters are more likely to vote for a woman or person of color as one of their preferences in campaigns that are less polarized. Ranked-choice voting has been used in a number of cities, including in San Francisco, where sixteen out of the eighteen elected offices are filled with individuals of color, an increase of nine after San Francisco switched to ranked-choice voting methods in 2004. While ranked-choice voting is only one of many solutions to the problem of underrepresentation of ethnic minorities in the U.S., it is a promising start that can create a pipeline of change.</p>
<p>There is an obvious problem underlying US elected offices--representatives do not reflect the communities in which we live if old, white men continue to represent a population that is much more diverse. While it is unclear what role race played in this midterm election, one thing is certain: people of color must navigate and negotiate their racial identity in a way that white candidates need not think about at all. And with that fact alone, the U.S.'s political playing field becomes uneven. </p>Tue, 11 Nov 2014 16:28:24 -0500http://www.fairvote.org/research-and-analysis/blog/people-of-color-in-american-elections-2014-advances-and-setbacks/Read FairVote’s Testimonies to Two State Government Reform Commissionshttp://www.fairvote.org/research-and-analysis/blog/read-fairvotes-testimonies-to-two-state-government-reform-commissions/
<p><em>Interested in this topic? <a href="http://org.salsalabs.com/o/2495/p/salsa/web/common/public/signup?signup_page_KEY=5995" target="_blank">Sign up</a> to receive our newsletter and other updates on elections and electoral reform.</em></p>
<hr><p>In Ohio and Virginia, bipartisan commissions are debating sweeping reforms to state governance, including new procedures for drawing state legislative districts. FairVote has contributed testimony to both commissions urging them to consider two key policy innovations that would increase competition in every district, make legislatures more reflective of voters’ preferences, and encourage the nomination and election of women and minority candidates: <a href="http://www.fairvote.org/reforms/fair-representation-voting/">multi-seat ranked choice voting</a> and <a href="http://www.fairvote.org/reforms/fair-representation-voting/districts-plus/">Districts Plus</a>.</p>
<p>Read FairVote’s testimony to Ohio’s Constitutional Modernization Commission <a href="http://www.fairvote.org/assets/Testimony-re-Alternative-Districting-Methods-in-Ohio.pdf">here</a> and FairVote’s testimony to Virginia’s Integrity Commission <a href="http://www.fairvote.org/assets/Testimony-re-Redistricting-in-Virginia.pdf">here</a>.</p>
<p>Ohio’s <a href="http://www.ocmc.ohio.gov/ocmc/home">Constitutional Modernization Commission</a>, tasked with gathering and reporting recommendations to the Ohio state legislature about potential amendments to the state constitution, is <a href="http://oberlinreview.org/6201/news/parties-clash-over-redistricting-proposal/">hotly</a> <a href="http://www.10tv.com/content/stories/apexchange/2014/10/12/oh--ohio-redistricting-things-to-know.html">debating</a> the creation of a new bipartisan panel to draw districts for Ohio’s General Assembly and U.S. House delegation. But while a bipartisan or nonpartisan body can help reduce the role of parties’ self-interest in the districting process, panels like these have their limits: so long as districts are locked into electing a single winner by a simple plurality vote, no commission can overcome the inherent tradeoffs between competitiveness, compactness, and accurate reflection of the statewide electorate. FairVote’s <a href="http://www.fairvote.org/assets/Testimony-re-Alternative-Districting-Methods-in-Ohio.pdf">testimony</a> encourages Ohio to empower any district-drawing commission to consider and implement ranked-choice voting in multi-seat districts.</p>
<p>Under such a system, large “super districts” with up to five seats would replace current single-member districts. In a five-seat district, a threshold of about 17% support would be needed to elect a candidate; in a five-seat super district whose voters preferred Republicans to Democrats by 55% to 45%, for example, voters might elect three Republican candidates and two Democratic candidates. Multi-seat districts would thereby give representation to voters on the political left, right, and center across the state, not just those voters living in districts in which they are part of the majority bloc. And in most districts at least one seat would be competitive between the two major parties, allowing nearly all voters the chance to cast a meaningful vote – unlike in Ohio’s 2012 state legislative elections, when the winning candidate won with less than 60% of the vote in barely a third of races. </p>
<p>Virginia’s <a href="https://governor.virginia.gov/integrity-commission/">Commission to Ensure Integrity and Public Confidence in State Government</a>, created by Governor Terry McAuliffe in September 2014, is tasked with drawing up recommendations for reforms to promote good governance in Virginia. Its broad policy scope includes government ethics and campaign finance in addition to procedures for legislative and congressional redistricting. After its first public forum, it received <a href="http://www.dailyprogress.com/news/local/citizens-to-governor-s-commission-redistricting-reform-needed/article_cdfa718e-6627-11e4-94b8-0017a43b2370.html">a clear message</a> from Virginia citizens about the importance of redistricting reform.</p>
<p>Like Ohio, Virginia would benefit greatly from moving to multi-seat districts with ranked choice voting for its state legislative elections. As noted in FairVote’s <a href="http://www.fairvote.org/assets/Testimony-re-Redistricting-in-Virginia.pdf">testimony</a> to the commission, Virginia in particular would be well positioned to reap the benefits of multi-seat districts’ <a href="http://www.representation2020.com/electoral-reform.html">effects on women’s representation</a>: the state currently ranks at the bottom of all 50 states for women’s representation as measured by its <a href="http://www.representation2020.com/gender-parity-index.html">gender parity index</a> - a metric developed by FairVote’s Representation2020 project to describe the degree to which women are equally likely to win elected office as men - and just 23 of Virginia’s 140 state legislative seats are held by women. Multi-seat districts (both in the United States and internationally) tend to elect more women than single-member districts, and while many factors other than election methods are at play, the ten states which currently use multi-seat districts to elect at least one state legislative house rank among the highest for women’s representation in their state legislatures.</p>
<div class="captionImage right" style="width: 299px;"><img class="right" title="" src="http://www.fairvote.org/assets/Uploads/_resampled/ResizedImage299148-VAstatelegPlan11.PNG" alt="VAstatelegPlan11" width="299" height="148"><p class="caption right">Twenty Virginia State House of Delegates "Super Districts" Would Elect Five Members Each</p>
</div>
<p>Indeed, FairVote has already developed a <a href="http://www.fairvote.org/research-and-analysis/blog/virginia-redistricting-part-ii/">model plan for Virginia</a> to demonstrate what it could look like having Virginia’s general assembly elected by ranked choice voting. It consists of 20 super districts, each electing five members of the Virginia House of Delegates and 10 super districts, each electing four members of the Virginia State Senate. With 17% of the vote needed to elect one of the five representatives to the House of Delegates in each super district and 20% need to elect one of the four state senators in each super district, Virginia could fairly represent nearly all of its constituents: left, right, and center.</p>
<p>FairVote’s testimony to both Ohio’s and Virginia’s reform commissions also recommended considering a <a href="http://www.fairvote.org/reforms/fair-representation-voting/districts-plus/">Districts Plus</a> system for the states’ legislative elections, which could be implemented separately from or in tandem with multi-seat districts with ranked choice voting. Districts Plus describes a mixed apportionment system in which most seats are still elected from districts, but a certain number of additional “accountability seats” are allotted to parties based on the share of the vote each party’s candidates received statewide (or in larger “accountability districts”). Districts Plus helps ensure that whichever party’s candidates win the most votes across the state are guaranteed a majority in the legislature. It also makes each vote more meaningful: even when a district is a lock for one party, every vote cast in that district counts towards the overall total upon which the accountability seats are awarded. This gives parties incentives to compete in every district and allows districts to be drawn with a focus on compactness and compliance with the Voting Rights Act, as some degree of competition is guaranteed. Further information on Districts Plus is available <a href="http://www.fairvote.org/assets/Policy-Guide/Districts-Plus-Policy-Brief.pdf">here</a>.</p>
<p>It’s encouraging that Ohio and Virginia are actively seeking to modernize their legislative redistricting procedures. It’s FairVote’s hope that as part of this process, state policymakers will recognize the inherent limitations imposed by single-member, winner-take-all districts and consider reforms that would create more competitive elections, more majoritarian results, and more representative legislatures.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>Mon, 10 Nov 2014 15:24:20 -0500http://www.fairvote.org/research-and-analysis/blog/read-fairvotes-testimonies-to-two-state-government-reform-commissions/RCV to the Rescue: Non-Majority Winners in Gubernatorial Raceshttp://www.fairvote.org/research-and-analysis/blog/rcv-to-the-rescue-non-majority-winners-in-gubernatorial-races/
<p dir="ltr"><em>Interested in this topic? <a href="http://org.salsalabs.com/o/2495/p/salsa/web/common/public/signup?signup_page_KEY=5995" target="_blank">Sign up</a> to receive our newsletter and other updates on elections and electoral reform.</em></p>
<hr><p dir="ltr">In Tuesday’s midterm elections, 36 states held gubernatorial elections. Of those races for governor, at least 10<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dre/politics/election-results-2014?office=governor&amp;state=12"> resulted in non-majority winners</a>--meaning that no candidate received support from more than 50% of voters. This scenario played out in Alaska, Hawaii, Kansas, Colorado, Florida, Maine, Massachusetts, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Vermont. <span id="docs-internal-guid-7eec146e-86ee-8e5d-5ca3-46fc0be3501a"><span>That means that in more than one in four states that elected a governor this week, a majority of voters will be governed for the next four years by a candidate for whom they did not vote -- and that's not counting the 63% of eligible voters who didn't make it to the polls in the first place.</span></span></p>
<p dir="ltr">Rhode Island’s Gina Raimondo (D) won the governorship with a startlingly low 40.2% of the vote, while third-place finisher and Moderate candidate Bob Healy garnered 22% of support. Raimondo's<span id="docs-internal-guid-7eec146e-86f0-89a4-651a-c43b8ad38b03"><span> predecessor Lincoln Chafee won the 2010 race for governor with an even lower share of the vote. </span></span>Maine re-elected incumbent Paul LePage with only 48.3% of the vote, while challengers Mike Michaud (D) and Eliot Cutler (I) split the remainder of the vote with 43.3% and 8.3% respectively. Of Maine's last 11 elections for governor, nine were won with less than 50%.</p>
<p dir="ltr"><img class="leftAlone" title="" src="http://www.fairvote.org/assets/Uploads/_resampled/ResizedImage600235-Gov-RCV-Maine-RI.png" alt="Gov RCV Maine RI" width="600" height="235"></p>
<p>Florida, one of the most hotly contested gubernatorial races of the year, saw incumbent Rick Scott (R) win narrowly (1.2 percentage points) with 48.2% of the vote. Had that race tightened ever so slightly, the 3.8% of votes garnered by Libertarian candidate Adrian Wyllie would have loomed even larger. <span id="docs-internal-guid-7eec146e-86e5-e07b-4c23-4b9d8a46b70c"><span>In Colorado, incumbent Governor </span><span>John Hickenlooper (D) was re-elected with 48.9% of the vote and a narrow 2.4 percentage point lead over challenger Bob Beauprez (R) (98% of precincts reporting at the time of this post). In that race, four different minor party candidates garnered more than 4% of votes.</span></span></p>
<p dir="ltr"><span id="docs-internal-guid-7eec146e-86f2-b546-eb61-51bc0d5ddde4"><span>Elsewhere, a Libertarian nominee had a big impact in a key U.S. Senate race in Virginia’. Incumbent Senator Mark Warner (D) survived a challenge from Republican Ed Gillespie by a margin of just 0.8 percentage points. Libertarian nominee Robert Sarvis garnered 2.4% of votes, far more than Warner’s margin of victory--just as he his vote share in the 2013 election for governor far exceeded Democrat Terry McAuliffe’s winning margin.</span></span></p>
<p dir="ltr"><img class="left" title="" src="http://www.fairvote.org/assets/Uploads/_resampled/ResizedImage315213-Virginia-Senate-Race.png" alt="Virginia Senate Race" width="315" height="213"><span id="docs-internal-guid-7eec146e-86f3-4c01-f288-70525a90b1d5"><span>Political parties and special interest PACs certainly have taken note of the potential for “spoilers”: as one example, the Arizona Democratic Party </span><a href="http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/arizona/politics/2014/10/29/democrats-send-mailer-featuring-libertarian-ight-congressional-race/18144379/"><span>sent campaign fliers</span></a><span> to conservative voters featuring a Libertarian candidate in a key congressional race there. When candidates can win with a plurality, strategic and manipulative strategies like this can pay off. While those tactics were not used in the Senate race in Virginia, the portion of conservative voters that voted Libertarian clearly had an impact. </span></span></p>
<p dir="ltr"><span>In these key races for our highest offices, minor party and independent candidates garnered enough support from voters to result in a non-majority winner for governor. The winner might well have legitimately been able to win a majority in a two-candidate race, but we will never know. In each case however, </span><a href="http://www.fairvote.org/reforms/instant-runoff-voting/"><span>ranked choice voting (RCV)</span></a><span> would have avoided such a result, and allowed for a consensus winner. RCV allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference and eliminates the “spoiler effect,” while still allowing voters to vote for their favorite candidate.</span></p>
<p dir="ltr"><span id="docs-internal-guid-7eec146e-86fc-20c1-0963-e47a7b6ad719"><span id="docs-internal-guid-7eec146e-86fc-20c1-0963-e47a7b6ad719">Mainers, who have now experienced this non-majority winner phenomenon in nine of their past 11 gubernatorial elections, </span><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/05/maine-governor-election-results_n_5896514.html"><span id="docs-internal-guid-7eec146e-86fc-20c1-0963-e47a7b6ad719">collected more than 30,000 signatures</span></a><span id="docs-internal-guid-7eec146e-86fc-20c1-0963-e47a7b6ad719"> on Election Day in a volunteer-run drive to collect the 60,000 signatures necessary to give Maine voters the chance to decide whether to implement RCV in all state and congressional races. Other states would do well to follow suit, and give their voters an opportunity to vote their conscience on Election Day, without fear of electing leaders who are strongly opposed by a majority of the electorate.</span></span></p>Thu, 06 Nov 2014 15:14:13 -0500http://www.fairvote.org/research-and-analysis/blog/rcv-to-the-rescue-non-majority-winners-in-gubernatorial-races/How Did Women Candidates Fare in 2014 U.S. House Races?http://www.fairvote.org/research-and-analysis/blog/how-did-women-candidates-fair-in-2014-u-s-house-races/
<p dir="ltr"><em>Interested in this topic? <a href="http://org.salsalabs.com/o/2495/p/salsa/web/common/public/signup?signup_page_KEY=5995" target="_blank">Sign up</a> to receive our newsletter and other updates on elections and electoral reform.</em></p>
<hr><p> </p>
<p><img class="center" title="" src="http://www.fairvote.org/assets/Uploads/0806-seante-house-capitol-senate-recess-full-600.jpg" alt="0806 seante house capitol senate recess full 600" width="600" height="400"></p>
<p>There has been a lot of attention to how women did in major statewide races – with the bottom line being that women will remain stuck at holding only 10% of governorships and 20% of the Senate (unless Mary Landrieu pulls of an upset in the December runoff in Louisiana). But how about the House of Representatives, where there may be as many as 11 new Members?</p>
<p>Two weeks ago, I published a blog post on <a href="http://www.fairvote.org/research-and-analysis/blog/winners-and-losers-among-women-candidates-in-2014-midterm-elections/">projections for women candidates in U.S. House races</a>. FairVote’s <a href="http://www.fairvote.org/research-and-analysis/congressional-elections/monopoly-politics-2014-and-the-fair-voting-solution/"><em>Monopoly Politics 2014</em></a> report, and other political commentators, had projected that women candidates would face several key patterns: incumbents would generally win, challengers would generally lose, and women would be underrepresented in open seats. Turns out, we were right.</p>
<p><em>Monopoly Politics 2014</em> offered projections for 132 women candidates’ outcomes, or 81.5% out of the total 162 women candidates running. The projected outcomes were correct for at least 131 women candidates, with one candidate still awaiting the results of a race that was too close to call (Louise Slaughter, Democrat, New York District 25). At the very least, our projected outcomes were correct for 99% of women candidates.</p>
<p><em>Monopoly Politics 2014</em> correctly projected that most women incumbents would win. Indeed, 71 incumbents won, one lost (Carol Shea-Porter, Democrat, New Hampshire District 1), and one race is too close to call (Slaughter).</p>
<p><em>Monopoly Politics 2014</em> correctly projected that most challengers would lose. And indeed, 69 challengers to incumbents lost, while only one won (Gwen Graham, Democrat, Florida District 2), and one is in a race that is too close to call (Martha McSally, Republican, Arizona District 2 – only ahead by 36 votes).</p>
<p>Finally,<em> Monopoly Politics 2014</em> correctly projected outcomes for most of the open seats, generally showing that women would win slightly more often than they would lose. In open seat races, ten women won and eight lost, meaning women won 22.2% of the 45 open seats in 2014 – not much better than their overall 18.5% share of the House in the 113<sup>th</sup> U.S. Congress.</p>
<p>What do the 2014 election results mean for the struggle to reach gender parity? They show that women are still not winning enough open seats, Republicans in particular are not nominating many women in viable races, and the pace of change leaves us many decades, if not centuries, from achieving parity.</p>
<p>First, the 2014 U.S. House elections have led to a total of 11 new women being elected into office. For the first time in U.S. history, <a href="http://www.salon.com/2014/11/05/there_are_100_women_in_congress_for_the_first_time_in_history/">more than 100 women will serve in Congress</a> out of a 535 seats (not counting delegates from Washington, D.C. and the territories. This is an important mile marker to pass on the path to gender parity. Nonetheless, with only 80 women in the U.S. House, we still find ourselves ranked <a href="http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/classif.htm">85th worldwide for the percentage of women in our national legislature</a>. Furthermore, there remain 11 states with all-male delegations to Congress, and New Hampshire lost its briefly-held status as the only state ever to have an all-female delegation.</p>
<p>Second, both parties could be doing better in recruiting more women for the House and other races. Democrats certainly could and should find ways to elect more women, especially for statewide executive offices, considering only two of the five women governors are Democrats. </p>
<div class="captionImage left" style="width: 250px;"><img class="left" title="" src="http://www.fairvote.org/assets/Uploads/_resampled/ResizedImage250309-MiaLove.jpg" alt="MiaLove" width="250" height="309"><p class="caption left">Mia Love at CPAC. (Wikimedia Commons)</p>
</div>
<p>Republican women had a better year than usual with several winning historic “firsts.” Senator-elect Joni Ernst became the first-ever woman elected to Congress from Iowa, Elise Stefanik became the youngest woman ever elected to Congress when winning an open seat in New York, and Utah’s Mia Love became the first Republican, African American woman elected to Congress. Still, Republicans are falling short overall. <a href="http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/press_room/news/documents/PressRelease_09-10-14_postprimary.pdf">Democrats lead Republicans in nominating women candidates for Congress by large margins</a>. Of 21 new Republicans definitively elected to Congress (as of this writing), <a href="http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/press_room/news/documents/PressRelease_11-05-14-electionresults.pdf">only six are women</a>.</p>
<p>Finally, and most importantly, the election results reveal that we are not moving toward gender parity in the U.S. House fast enough. It will still be decades, if not centuries, until women are just as likely as men to represent a majority of the House. </p>
<p>The fact that <em><a href="http://www.fairvote.org/research-and-analysis/congressional-elections/monopoly-politics-2014-and-the-fair-voting-solution/">Monopoly Politics 2014</a></em> projections were so accurate, even when based on data from 2012, demonstrates that the vast majority of races are not competitive. The parties that control House districts tend to continue to control them, making any change in the makeup of the House slow. Incumbents, who are mostly male and mostly serving in districts that support their respective parties, will tend to hold onto their seats. Women candidates, especially women challengers, running in districts not supported by their respective parties will tend to lose. In other words, the U.S. electoral system keeps things the same, and that means ongoing gender disparity in the U.S. House.</p>
<p>For real change to happen, we need to go beyond current reforms. Representation 2020 supports several structural reforms to reach gender parity. First, political parties, influential leaders, donors, and other gatekeepers should expand current efforts to recruit more women, especially in open seat races. Second, the U.S. should enact structural reforms to the winner-take-all, single-member district systems, making our electoral system more representative. Third, the U.S. Congress should adopt legislative practices that allow women to lead effectively.</p>
<p>The 2014 U.S. House elections saw many positive outcomes for women candidates, but not enough. <a href="http://www.representation2020.com/">Representation 2020</a>’s reforms will accelerate changes to women’s representation in elected office.</p>
<p><em>For excellent information on the 2014 elections and representation of women in general, visit the website of the <a href="http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/">Center for American Women in Politics at Rutgers University</a>.</em></p>Wed, 05 Nov 2014 18:06:09 -0500http://www.fairvote.org/research-and-analysis/blog/how-did-women-candidates-fair-in-2014-u-s-house-races/